Attorney General's Office requested the judgment be reduced exviceministro of Agriculture, which sentenced him to 10 years and three months in prison
• For the prosecution, conviction disregarded the terms of the draft agreement concluded between the Prosecutor and Mr. Juan Camilo Salazar Rueda, exviceministro of Agriculture.
The Attorney General's Office asked the Superior Court of Bogotá to reduce the penalty imposed and change the first section of the sentence, by which it approved the draft agreement concluded between the Prosecutor and Juan Camilo Salazar Rueda, exviceministro of Agriculture, condemning the custodial sentence of ten (10) years and three (3) months in the framework of the Agricultural Income Security (AIS).
In this preliminary agreement, Salazar accepted the charges wheel for the crimes of contracts without complying with legal requirements, as intervener, readecuada conduct in relation to the principles of strict legality and authenticity, which consisted of degradation mode of intent to blame the conduct of embezzlement.
The criterion was the prosecution to argue that the judgment was disregarded the terms of the agreement between the prosecution and the defendant, showing that the judge was convinced that the defendant had accepted the charges with the application of the grounds that increases the penalty provided in Article 58 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal partnership.
It then argues that there is ignorance on the part of the judge of the terms of the draft agreement so there is reason to appeal because the judgment in considering the counter overflowed as expressly signed by the defendant in the respective record, which had agreed the acceptance of charges with the recognition of the fact referred to a higher penalty criminal partnership, having clear that at any point of the draft agreement itself mentioned, much less accepted the application of this aggravating question. Therefore could not be taken into account when making the quantification of the sentence.
Similarly, the prosecution noted in relation to the individualization of the penalty for the crime of embezzlement by appropriation to third parties, which in the judgment errors were made: First, if it is accepted that the draft agreement was amended the typical subjective intent to blame on the other, also applies the aggravating already mentioned, ie requires the agreement of wills, because what is alleged in the offense is culpable violation of the objective duty of care and not willing to produce an outcome of harm.
The appeal was filed with the Circuit Criminal Court 43 of Bogota Knowledge transfer within the period of appeal filed by the defense against the judgment.