4.Criminal Office 2013/1460 E., 2014/9900 K.
“legal text”
Notification Date: 2 – 2011/236560
COURT : Ankara 10. The Criminal Court of Peace
DATE : 26/04/2011
NUMBER : 2009/468(E) and 2011/490(K)
OFFENSE : Insulting
The decision made by the Local Court was appealed, but the file was discussed taking into account the duration of the application and the nature of the decision and the date of the crime:
Since there is no reason for the rejection of the appeal request, the basis of the work has been passed.
In the examination conducted according to the minutes, documents and justification contents reflecting the trial process in which conscientious conviction was formed, it was found that other justifications were not in place.
But,
Paid pay him his debt after a while after the interview by saying that the defendant will pay his debt to him, came from out of town, got angry at the client’s presence at the meeting time and place, and not received by mobile phone, in a format of “pay enough by curling up like a belly dancer” message content, the client’s arrival at the hearing in response to harsh criticism and insults directed at him, does not constitute a crime of disregard, does not constitute the establishment of justifiable reasons with the provision of an illegal conviction,
2-According to the admissions, also
a) In the face of the defendant’s defense that he came from out of town to meet with the plaintiff who owed him, but the plaintiff did not come to the meeting place and did not pay his debt, 129 of the Turkish Commercial Code. not discussing whether the article should be applied by focusing on the defense of the article,
b) The absence of a criminal record of the accused, the fact that there is no material damage to be remedied for the offense of defamation, and the occurrence of moral damage does not constitute an obstacle to the implementation of the decision to postpone the announcement of the CMK 231/6 provision, the fact that it was not decided to withdraw the announcement of the provision by examining the conditions contained in the article,
contrary to the law, the defendant’s M..O.. due to the fact that the reasons for the appeal were evaluated on the spot, it was decided unanimously on 31/03/2014 to OVERTURN the DECISION by rejecting the approval decision contained in the communique, to send the file to the court of first instance, to continue and conclude the trial starting from the preliminary examination stage.