Hanged on hook and dismembered using chainsaw: three Volgograd furniture makers sentenced to 45 years in prison for brutal murder of colleague
The men received sentences from 12 to 17 years in prison.
On September 27, the Russian Supreme Court upheld the sentence to three residents of Volgograd, who brutally murdered and dismembered their colleague in the furniture manufacture, Volgograd Online reports. The overall sentence amounted to 45 years in prison.
The murder was committed in April 2018. Director of furniture manufacture Artyom Malakhov, 37, technical director Denis Gladoshchuk, 29, and carpenter Boris Artemenko, 49, drank in the furniture workshop in the Traktorozavodsky District of Volgograd. A 35-year-old furniture collector joined them at some point. During the celebration, a quarrel arose between the colleagues. The furniture collector was accused of allegedly mixing drugs with alcohol.
The man was beaten, after which the perpetrators tied his hands with and hung him on a hook in the workshop. Then, the killers stabbed him in the neck and chest. After that, the collector’s body was dismembered using a chainsaw, and the remains were packed in plastic bags.
The victim’s body parts were dumped into a landfill in the Gorodishchensky District of Volgograd. An 80-year-old pensioner who subsequently turned to the police witnessed this.
The killers were detained the next day. The Volgograd Regional Court sentenced Artemenko to 17 years in a special regime penal colony with a subsequent restriction of liberty for two years and a fine of 750,000 rubles ($ 12,000), Malakhov received 15 years and six months in a high security penal colony with a two-year restriction of freedom and a similar fine, Gladoshchuk to 12 years and nine months of strict regime penal colony with a restriction of freedom for one year and a fine of 500,000 rubles ($ 8,000). It is noted that all three killers already had a criminal record.
The killers’ defense considered the sentence too harsh and appealed it to the Supreme Court. However, the Court did not agree with the lawyers’ arguments and upheld the initial decisions.