The court reviewed the case of a man found guilty of systematic violence against his former partner, including an episode of strangulation. He was initially given a suspended sentence, which raised concerns about whether the punishment was proportionate to the severity of the crimes committed. The Prosecutor General used the procedure for reviewing excessively lenient sentences and appealed to the appellate court demanding stricter punishment. Following the appeal hearing, the court found the original sentence unjustifiably lenient and decided to replace the suspended sentence with actual imprisonment. As a result, the convicted man will now serve his term in prison. The case drew attention as an example of the mechanism for reviewing sentences in domestic violence cases, which allows for correcting first-instance court decisions when the assigned punishment does not match the severity of the crime. Such cases often become the subject of public discussion about the need for a stricter approach to cases involving violence against partners and about protecting the rights of victims.