Questione giuridica chiave
Whether the public-law appeal alleging arbitrariness under Art. 9 Cst. was admissible despite minimal constitutional reasoning.
Decisione estratta
No. The appeal did not satisfy the required constitutional-motivation standard because it did not identify concretely which constitutional right was violated or how the factual findings were arbitrary.
Motivazione estratta
The filing relied almost exclusively on Art. 173 CP and only invoked Art. 9 Cst. in general terms. The court held that a constitutional complaint must contain a concise, specific statement of the rights violated and the manner of violation; generalized allegations of factual inaccuracy are insufficient.