The tourist who spray-painted Charles Bridge failed to appeal. The penalty applies
On appeal, Wittig criticized, for example, the fact that the public hearing of the Court of Appeal was held by videoconference, without his physical participation on the spot.
However, the Supreme Court (NS) called video conferencing a sensible solution at a time when the covidu-19 pandemic was complicating travel between states. The Court of Appeal proceeded correctly and in full compliance with the legal provisions when using the videoconferencing equipment, the NS stated.
Wittig’s other objections were to the conduct and evaluation of the evidence. He objected, for example, to the credibility of witness statements and their mutual testimonies, and also pointed to missing physical evidence, such as fingerprints, from the crime scene.
“The lower courts dealt in detail with the assessment of all the evidence and the facts from which they derived the finding of the act under assessment, so the NS refers to their conclusions,” the NS judges replied.
The inscription appeared on the pillar of the bridge in mid-July 2019. The restorers began removing it on July 27 and planned that the work would last until mid-August. According to the contract, they were to receive 40 thousand crowns.
But on the night of July 28, the graffiti unexpectedly disappeared. A man who said he had used a high-pressure, proud couple subsequently applied for the removal. Laboratory results showed that the masonry of the bridge was not damaged by the unexpected action.
The second of the sprayers confessed to the crime from the beginning and accepted the punishment. Among other things, he stated in court in the past that he did not realize how much he placed the graffiti monument.
Wittig, on the other hand, denied the allegations. The courts found that the inscription on the pillar was sprayed by both men, based, among other things, on the testimony of witnesses.