A Danish recording artist has been convicted of aggravated assault following an incident at a Copenhagen nightclub, in a case that underscores ongoing accountability issues in Scandinavia's entertainment industry.

Kevin Andreasen was found guilty by a jury at Copenhagen District Court (Københavns Byret) after prosecutors proved he threw a hard plastic drinking glass containing an alcoholic beverage at two patrons inside the Arch nightclub in the Danish capital. Both victims sustained facial lacerations requiring medical stitching.

The court imposed a suspended prison sentence of 60 days with a probationary period of one year, alongside a requirement to complete 80 hours of community service—a common alternative-to-incarceration sentence in the Danish legal system.

**The Charges and Verdict**

Andreasen faced two distinct charges under Denmark's Criminal Code: simple assault (paragraph 244) and aggravated assault (paragraph 245). The distinction is significant in Scandinavian law. Simple assault in this context refers to violence such as striking someone in the face with an open hand, while aggravated assault involves more serious violence or violence resulting in injury requiring medical treatment.

The jury unanimously acquitted Andreasen of the simple assault charge but found him guilty of aggravated violence—meaning the court determined the glass-throwing incident crossed the threshold of serious injury due to the facial wounds inflicted on both victims.

**Nightclub Violence in Northern Europe**

The case reflects a broader pattern of celebrity-involved violence at Copenhagen venues. Nightclub assaults have become increasingly scrutinized by Danish authorities and media, particularly when perpetrators hold public profiles. Arch, where the incident occurred, is a prominent nightlife destination in central Copenhagen frequented by local entertainment figures.

Denmark's approach to such cases differs notably from some international jurisdictions. Rather than mandatory jail time, Danish courts frequently impose suspended sentences combined with community service, reflecting Nordic rehabilitation-focused criminal justice philosophies that prioritize offender reintegration over purely punitive measures.

**Details and Disputes**

According to court records, the incident involved a projectile object—specifically a rigid plastic glass—striking victims in the face. The severity of injuries sustained (facial lacerations requiring professional medical closure) elevated the charge from common assault to the more serious aggravated category under Danish law.

Andreasen's defense contested aspects of the prosecution's case, though the jury ultimately sided with the state's version of events. Court proceedings noted that Andreasen had claimed provocation was a factor in the altercation, a detail that may have influenced the court's decision to impose a suspended rather than custodial sentence.

**Sentencing in Context**

The 80-hour community service requirement is equivalent to roughly two weeks of full-time work. Combined with the suspended prison sentence, this represents a moderate penalty within Danish sentencing guidelines for first-time assault convictions resulting in injury.

Under the conditions of his sentence, any subsequent conviction during the one-year probationary period could result in the suspended sentence being activated, transforming it into actual incarceration time.

**Broader Implications**

The conviction demonstrates that Danish courts are willing to prosecute entertainment industry figures despite their public status. Copenhagen's judicial system has increasingly applied consistent standards regardless of a defendant's professional prominence, a trend that reflects broader Nordic commitments to equal application of law.

The case also illustrates how different legal jurisdictions categorize violence. The distinction between simple and aggravated assault—and the emphasis on resulting injury rather than weapon type—shows how Scandinavian legal frameworks approach violent crime differently than common law countries, where weapon use alone often elevates charges regardless of injury severity.