A. M. was charged with the fact that „in the period from October 2010 to December 2016, he repeatedly accused A. B. of conduct and properties that could humiliate him in public opinion and expose him to the loss of trust needed to practice his profession by accusing him of falsifying documents of the cooperative in which he is the President of the Management Board, attesting untruths and lies, suggesting bribery, attributing and making statements that did not come from him, threatening to send him denunciations, uttering other untrue statements aimed at discrediting him in the eyes of members and contractors cooperative, and also harassed him by directing individual (personalized) statements that should concern a multi-person management board, and in cases conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office he swindled and presented false evidence, which led to unfounded accusations against him of extorting untruths in document”, i.e. for an act under Art. 212 § 1 k.k.
However, due to the insignificant social harmfulness of the act, the proceedings were discontinued.
In the context of this case, the Supreme Court issued a decision of December 14, 2022 (II KK 460/22), in which it stated that the condition for examining the social harmfulness of an act is its unlawfulness, and therefore the argument that this behavior is unlawful, in no way cannot constitute a violation of Art. 115 § 2 k.k. It must be clarified that the examination of the level of social harmfulness of an act belongs to the sphere of factual findings, and not to the assessment of whether the provision of Art. 115 § 2 k.k.
