The General Court of Debrecen made a final decision at a council meeting held on March 3, 2021, in the case of a defendant who spent a couple of days in several hotels in the country and then left without pay.
The court of second instance upheld the judgment of the Hajdúszoboszló District Court of 27 October 2020 in criminal proceedings for 38 counts.
According to the facts finally established by the court, the 49-year-old man was released from his arrest ordered in the same case on February 6, 2019, and then six days later he took out a room again in a hotel in Hajdúszoboszló for not wanting to pay.
It was the case that the man, under a pseudonym, deceived the staff and then used the services of the hotels without intending to pay for accommodation, using various benefits and services without having the financial means to do so. Between 12 February and 18 November 2019, the defendant spent 164 nights in a total of 40 hotels in different parts of the country.
The defendant most often booked accommodation online for three to five days, but extended his booking several times during his stay at the hotel. He usually left the hotels the day before the last night without pay and usually stayed in a hotel in another town that night. According to the accusation, D. A. visited five hotels in Pécs, but also visited Hajdúszoboszló and Sárvár two times. The man, who damaged dozens of hotels from Szombathely to Vásárosnamény, was arrested on 18 November 2019 in a hotel in Veresegyháza and then detained. The accused caused a total of nearly HUF 3.5 million in damage to the 40 victims, which was not recovered.
The Criminal Council, headed by Dr. Marianna Hutkai, reviewed the first-instance verdict in a limited review, in which it was upheld at second instance. The court did not examine the facts themselves, only the imposition of the sentence and its circumstances. There was no absolute procedural irregularity in the case and the classification of the offenses was correct. The tribunal agreed with the range of mitigating and aggravating circumstances established at first instance, and the type and level of punishment imposed are also correct for the application of the principles of individual and general prevention. The decision is final.