Last year, footballer Jérôme Boateng was convicted of assault for punching his then-girlfriend in the face. But both sides appealed. It is now clear when negotiations will resume.
The assault process against former soccer player Jérôme Boateng is entering the next round. The 33-year-old is back in court in October, according to the Munich I district court. The trial, for which two days of negotiations are scheduled, is scheduled to begin on October 20th.
In September last year, the district court in Munich sentenced Boateng to a fine of 1.8 million euros. The court saw it as proven that the athlete had hit his then partner in the face on a Caribbean vacation in 2018. Boateng, who is under contract with Olympique Lyon, appealed against this judgment – as did the public prosecutor and the private prosecutor.
The judge imposed a fine of 60 daily rates of 30,000 euros each. 30,000 euros is the highest possible daily rate, but Boateng does not have a criminal record. There is only a criminal record from 90 daily rates. The public prosecutor's office had demanded a suspended sentence of one and a half years - and a fine of 1.5 million euros. Boateng's then defender Kai Walden had demanded an acquittal.
According to the prosecution, Boateng is said to have attacked the woman while vacationing on the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean. He hit her, punched her, bit her in the head, threw her on the ground and severely insulted her. The ex-girlfriend described it similarly as a joint plaintiff. The allegations were of insult and bodily harm, the public prosecutor's office even assumed dangerous bodily harm in their closing arguments.
The court, on the other hand, only accepted "a punch" in the face. Boateng rejected the allegations. He admitted in court that there was an escalation in the Caribbean luxury complex with a private pool and employees. He emphasized that he never hit his ex-girlfriend.
According to their consistent statements, the two have had an “on-off relationship” since 2007, and since 2015 they have been arguing in the family court about the right to determine the residence of their children.
