Facts
The complainant [A.] had been employed by the Federal Police since 1 April 2003. He was dismissed without notice on 21 August 2008 after committing various offences, including the misuse of electronic time recording. The Federal Department of Justice and Police determined on 3 April 2009 that the employment relationship had been terminated in the ordinary manner as of 31 December 2008. On 7 July 2009, the Federal Office of Police filed a criminal complaint for fraud. On 20 August 2009, the investigating magistrate's office found [A.] guilty by penal order, as he had been absent from his workplace for at least 9.5 hours without clocking out. [A.] appealed against the penal order. On 26 January 2011, the Regional Court of Bern-Mittelland convicted [A.] of multiple counts of fraud as well as (multiple) simple and serious traffic offences, and imposed a suspended fine, a cumulative fine and a fine for a misdemeanour. The appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Bern on 20 September 2011. The FSCA upheld [A.] 's appeal in criminal matters on 28 February 2013 and remanded the case to the lower court for the discontinuation of the proceedings regarding the fraud allegation. On 15 May 2013, the Cantonal Court discontinued the proceedings for multiple counts of fraud, but upheld the legal force of the finding of guilt (multiple simple and serious traffic offences) and the acquittal (simple traffic offence). It imposed a suspended fine, a cumulative fine and a fine for a misdemeanour. It also ordered [A.] to pay the first-instance procedural costs of CHF 4,500.-- and did not award him party compensation for the proceedings before the Regional Court of Bern-Mittelland. It set the compensation for the court-appointed defence counsel at CHF 8,577.60. For the appeal proceedings and the proceedings after the remand, it imposed costs of CHF 800.-- on him and awarded him party compensation of CHF 4,689.35.Considerations
1. The FSCA considers the lower court's factual findings to be non-arbitrary. The lower court relies on the statements of various witnesses, the complainant's time recording evidence and the electronically stored access control. These means of evidence correspond with each other and show that the complainant was unlawfully absent during the period in question and did not properly record his working hours. The…