Open appropriation of someone else’s property, committed without a selfish motive, cannot be qualified as robbery under Art. 186 of the Criminal Code

Circumstances of the case: PERSON_1 was accused by the pre-trial investigation body of the fact that, while driving by the store, he saw a company of minor children, among whom was PERSON_2, who showed PERSON_1 an obscene gesture with his hand. Outraged by the minor's actions, PERSON_1 stopped the car, caught up with PERSON_2 and, by jerking without using violence, openly snatched the mobile phone from the hands of the minor, causing material damage to the victim in the total amount of UAH 719.17. PERSON_1 disposed of the stolen property at his own discretion.

Positions of the courts of the first and appellate instances: according to the verdict of the local court, PERSON_1 was found not guilty of the charges brought under Part 1 of Art. 186 of the Criminal Code and was acquitted due to lack of evidence in the act of the accused as part of a criminal offense.
The appellate court left the specified verdict unchanged.
The position of the CCS: the decision of the appellate court was left unchanged.
Justification of the position of the CCC: the panel of judges considers the arguments of the prosecutor in the cassation appeal to be groundless that the local court unreasonably recognized the lack of direct intent in the actions of the accused when taking possession of the mobile phone of a minor, since PERSON_1 really had the opportunity to dispose of the property. At the same time, the court did not correctly evaluate the testimony of witnesses, which led to the unjustified acquittal of the accused.
It can be seen from the materials of the criminal proceedings that the court fully and comprehensively examined the evidence collected in the case, analyzed it, and came to the well-founded conclusion that with this evidence PERSON_1 is guilty of the criminal offense provided for in Part 1 of Art. 186 of the Criminal Code, is not confirmed, therefore the court's decision on the need for his acquittal is justified.
Rejecting the appeal, the panel of judges noted that, refuting the accusation brought against PERSON_1, the court checked the evidence collected during the pre-trial investigation, on the basis of which the accusation was brought, cited the reasons for taking into account some evidence and rejecting others, state the grounds on which he found certain pieces of evidence inadmissible, and reasonably came to the conclusion of his innocence, indicating the grounds for acquittal in the motivational part of the verdict. In particular, the court substantiated its conclusions with the examined statements of the victim PERSON_2, witness PERSON_4, who confirmed that a stranger called PERSON_4 from the mobile phone of PERSON_2's son and informed that because of the improper upbringing of his son, he took away the mobile phone, which he does not need, and he will throw it away 100 meters away. Similarly, these circumstances were confirmed by the eyewitnesses PERSON_5, PERSON_6, PERSON_7, PERSON_8, PERSON_9, PERSON_10, who indicated that on that day, walking from school with PERSON_2, the latter showed the middle finger to the driver of a passing car. The driver, getting out of the vehicle, caught up with PERSON_2, witnesses saw PERSON_2's phone in his possession, from which he called his mother, and then got into the car with the phone and drove away.
Under such circumstances, having evaluated each piece of evidence from the point of view of propriety, admissibility, and credibility, and in the aggregate of the collected evidence – from the point of view of sufficiency and interrelationship, the courts came to the correct conclusion that PERSON_1's actions lacked intent to commit robbery, namely selfish motive as a constituent element of the subjective side of the criminal offense provided for in Part 1 of Art. 186 of the Criminal Code.
You can read more about the text of the resolution of the Supreme Court dated 10/21/2021 in case No. 596/1688/18 (proceedings No. 5-3051км21) at the link .
Legal news of Ukraine