The issue of (among others) multi-variant offence has been taken upon in the glossed judgement. According to the Court of Appeal: 1) legislative content of art. 11 § 1 k.k. comes down to warrant consideration of one (identical) penally relevant action as one crime; while primarily the verb feature that has been used to describe the criminal offence decides if and when we deal with a single offence according to art. 11 § 1 k.k.; 2) the offence described in art. 296 k.k. belongs to the category of multi-variant offences, which means – despite multiple deeds (omissions) taken by the perpetrator, it is indivisible, which means that sentencing them for a fragment of such offence that contains some of the deeds and acquitting (discontinuing) them of the part containing other deeds of the offence is unacceptable; 3) erroneous discontinuation (even repeated) of the procedure only by a fragment of the offence (and part of the damage) by the prosecutor does not enact the victim's right to draw a subsidiary indictment. Author of this gloss critiques some of these assumptions and takes other into consideration.