In the judgment of December 2, 2020 (IV KK 706/19), the Supreme Court rightly recalled that „apart from the amount of income earned by the accused and his earning potential, from the perspective of assessing whether the accused fulfilled the features of a prohibited act under Art. 209 § 1a of the CC in connection with from § 1 of the CC and any further findings as to the degree of social harmfulness of this act, the amount and nature of the financial obligations incumbent on him is also of key importance, including in particular those subject to enforcement proceedings, as well as the degree to which the accused fulfilled these obligations and his efforts in in this respect „
This ruling was issued in a case in which the accused could not fulfill his maintenance obligation due to bailiff seizures.