Vencsislav Angelov, nicknamed, was acquitted Chicago, on charges of disorderly conduct and threatening to kill a doctor.
We remind you that in 2023 the Ruse District Court ordered one and a half years of imprisonment under a strict regime for hooliganism and threats of murder. On January 17, 2022, Angelov attacked a personal physician in Ruse's Novo Selo and tried to strangle him. The reason for the aggression towards the doctor was the death of his patient, whom he was obliged to vaccinate against COVID-19. Throughout the argument and fight between the two, Vencislav Angelov-Chicagoto was taking pictures with a phone.
The judicial panel of the Supreme Court considers the protest unfounded, "Nova TV" specified. For the overall control of the first-instance verdict, an additional judicial investigation was conducted, within the framework of which the already collected evidence was checked, and the court considered the newly performed presentation, inspection and technical expert examination of a video recording from January 17, 2022 to be of greatest importance among them.< /p>
The facts explained and accepted by the district court in the case cannot be considered as the result of an incomplete or incorrect assessment of the collected evidence, which is why the cassation instance considers as unfounded the arguments about the presence of an admitted violation of the procedural rules in this regard.
Regarding the allegations of violation of the law in the reasons of the Supreme Court, it is noted that, according to the indictment, the hooliganism of the defendant was reduced to shouting, insults and threats.
„In summary and in response to the arguments in the protest about the inadmissible behavior and assault towards a doctor, it should be explicitly noted that indeed the defendant's behavior is reprehensible and unlawful, but his legal evaluation as a threat to kill is inadmissible, and also as hooliganism in his specific activity outlined by the indictment, found to have been realized within the framework of the facts accepted in the case. There is a separate question as to the extent to which another less punishable crime was committed, but the same was not raised in the protest, and its discussion is pointless in the absence of a legally legitimate party in the case to request this, as the appeals court correctly noted, the supreme judges state .