Dmitry Zhebelev was fined 30 thousand rubles. This is reported by Idel.Realii.
The Dzerzhinsky District Court of Perm and the presiding judge Larisa Bogomolova issued a guilty verdict against Dmitry Zhebelev under the Part 1 of Art. 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (“Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation aimed to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, maintain international peace and security”). Former adviser to the governor and founder of the “Dedmorozim” fund, Zhebelev, received a fine of 30,000 rubles.
“As stated in the case file, I am here for those who do not know what it is to bury a child. And for never learning. Things are very strange in our country if one needs to defend the opinion in court that you can’t kill children. But I will still give three proofs that I have a right to it. As a result of any war, no matter who, no matter when and for whatever purposes, children die sooner or later. I will not argue with those who consider what is happening in Ukraine a “special operation” and not a war. Let them debate with the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language,” commented Dmitry Zhebelev.
The reason for drawing up a protocol against Zhebelev was a post on a social media page about the war in Ukraine. Zhebelev spoke about this in his Telegram channel.
The protocol states that “citizen Zhebelev D.G. On the 6th of March, 2022, at 13:54, through the social network Vkontakte published a text entry on his personal page with the following content: “To never happen and whatever happens.” At the same time, the document says, he “additionally posted his photograph with a poster in his hands. On the indicated poster was written, “For those who do not know what it is to bury children and for never learning it. No to war”, by which he carried out public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.”
In an interview with Idel.Realii, Dmitry Zhebelev confirmed that he did not agree with the court’s decision and intended to appeal against it in the court of appeal.