Conviction for endangerment through explosives with criminal intent

Facts

The appellant X. ignited a pyrotechnic device of the type Petard Shark 5 Gram (PS5) on April 21, 2017 in St. Gallen on the occasion of the Spring and Trend Fair St. Gallen (OFFA) in the outdoor area of Hall 4 and threw it from a crouching position within a crowd of people onto the busy St. Jakobstrasse in the direction of the "Olma-Messen" bus stop, directly between two buses. The firecracker detonated with a loud bang between the fully occupied VBSG bus waiting at the bus stop and the almost fully occupied Eurobus of PostAuto Schweiz AG driving outbound. The blast pressure caused one window each on the PostAuto and the VBSG bus to shatter, causing damage of CHF 2,695.- and CHF 2,595.10 respectively. The VBSG bus could not continue its journey and the onward journey of the PostAuto was delayed. A passenger sitting by the shattered window in the VBSG bus suffered bleeding scratches on her back from the glass shards.

On March 23, 2018, the Federal Prosecutor's Office filed charges against the appellant X. with the Federal Criminal Court. On September 5, 2018, the court found X. guilty as charged of endangerment through explosives and toxic gases with criminal intent within the meaning of Art. 224 para. 1 SCC, multiple manufacture, concealment, and transportation of explosives and toxic gases within the meaning of Art. 226 para. 2 SCC, and multiple criminal damage within the meaning of Art. 144 para. 1 SCC. It sentenced him to 26 months' imprisonment, the execution of which it suspended for 20 months on probation for 3 years.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court confirms the lower court's guilty verdict for endangerment through explosives with criminal intent pursuant to Art. 224 para. 1 SCC. The lower court has established in an arbitrary-free assessment of the evidence that the appellant was aware of the danger posed by the firecracker used, but nevertheless intentionally and with conditional intent ignited and threw it in the direction of the buses, accepting the injury of persons and the damage to third-party property.

The lower court has explained…