The office of public prosecution accused a defendant of impersonation a police officer and robbing a victim by entering his home. The office requested the court to penalise the defendant according to the relevant laws.

The court ruled that the defendant should be imprisoned for three years.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court amended the appealed ruling and ruled that the defendant should be imprisoned for one year and six months.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation. He said in his grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law and had insufficient evidence of causation. He said that the elements of the crime had not existed in the case.