Facts
The case concerns a penal order against [X.] , who was convicted of simple assault, theft, and property damage. [X.] filed an objection to the penal order. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne dismissed [X.] 's appeal.
[X.] filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting that the contested judgment be set aside and that he be acquitted of guilt and punishment.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Lucerne and remanded the case for a new assessment to the lower court. It justified this by stating that the penal order of September 6, 2012 did not meet the legal requirements.
According to Art. 353 para. 1 lit. c CrimPC, the penal order must contain the facts that are imputed to the accused person. The present penal order did not fulfill this requirement, as it only generally referred to simple assault, theft, and property damage, without describing the specific facts.
The Federal Supreme Court stated that a precise and comprehensive presentation of the facts in the penal order is essential to guarantee the rights of the accused. If the…