Summary
| Date: | 10 July 2024 |
| Location: | 1st Mixed Court of Appeals, Athens, room D120C |
| Access: | The hearing is open to the public without restrictions. Photojournalists are not allowed to cover the trial. |
| Defendants in attendance: | Spyridon Dimopoulos, owner of the jewelry store Athanasios Chortarias, owner of a real estate office |
| Process: | The decision of the court |
| Composition of the court: | President: Alexandra Vasilakakos Judges: Dimitrios Oikonomou, Ioanna Chatzaki Jurors: Asimakopoulou, Athanasopoulou, Kotsopoulou, Kourou Prosecutor: Stylianos Kostarellos |
Day 21 – 10 July 2024
The proceedings started at 10:00, with the court unanimously declaring both defendants guilty of deadly bodily harm against Zak Kostopoulos.
The defense counsel of the accused Spyridon Dimopoulos, Charalambos Anagnostopoulos, asked the court to recognize mitigating circumstances. Specifically, one on the grounds that the accused was pushed by feelings of “fear or despair” stating that the killer was pushed into this “unfortunate attempt to intercept” Zak. He also requested another mitigating circumstance, described by the law as “lawful previous behavior”.
The same mitigating circumstances were requested for the accused Athanasios Chortarias by his advocate, Ioannis Glykas, who also requested another one, that of subsequent good behavior.
In the case of Dimopoulos, the court recognized both mitigating factors, while in the case of Chortarias, only that of “lawful previous behavior”. It is worth noting that the prosecutor, Stylianos Kostarellos, suggested that no mitigating circumstances be recognized at all.
Finally, the court, taking into account the mitigating circumstances, imposed a prison sentence of 5 years on Spyridon Dimopoulos and 6 years on Athanasios Hortarias. The first was taken to his house, where he is already serving his sentence from the court of first instance, while the second is being taken back to prison. It should be noted that, between the court of first instance and the court of appeal, the defendant had applied for suspension of his sentence, which he had received.
The two convicts retain the right to file a request to the Supreme Court for a procedural review of the appeal trial and possible annulment, which would result in a repeat trial before a new Court of Appeal.
