6. Criminal Chamber 2021/11450 E. , 2021/7569 K.
COURT : Criminal Chamber
CRIMES: Qualified robbery, damage to property, intentional injury, violation of Law No. 6136
JUDGMENTS: Rejection of the appeal on the merits.
The decisions given by the Regional Court of Appeal were appealed and the file was examined and the necessary action was taken:
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the provisional 1 of Law No. 7226, published in the Official Gazette No. 31080 (repeated) dated March 26, 2020.ue to the Covid-19 pandemic, the provisional 1 of Law No. 7226, published in the Official Gazette No. 31080 (repeated) dated March 26, 2020. in accordance with Article 20 of Law No. 6136, which is in force until 15.06.2020 by publishing dated 30.04.2020 and numbered 31114 in the Official Gazette dated 29.04.2020 and numbered 2480 due to the extended periods from the date of 22/3/2020 (incluue to the Covid-19 pandemic, the provisional 1 of Law No. 7226, published in the Official Gazette No. 31080 (repeated) dated March 26, 2020. in accordance with Article 20 of Law No. 6136, which is in force until 15.06.2020 by publishing dated 30.04.2020 and numbered 31114 in the Official Gazette dated 29.04.2020 and numbered 2480 due to the extended periods from the date of 22/3/2020 (including this date) until 30/4/2020 (including this date), in accordance with Article 20 of the Law No. 6136, which is in force until 15.06.2020. in the examination of the article;
It is evaluated that it is possible to correct the date of the crime as 04.01.2016 in the reasoned decision title.It is evaluated that it is possible to correct the date of the crime as 04.01.2016 in the reasoned decision title.
I- The verdicts regarding the defendant for the crime of damaging property …, in violation of Law No. 6136; in the examination of the verdicts regarding the defendant for the crime of damaging property;
considering the amount and type of punishment, since it is not possible to impose five-year or less prison sentences and judicial fines regardless of the amount given by the courts of first instance in accordance with Article 286/2-a of CMK No. 5271 against the decisions of the regional court of justice regarding the rejection of the appeal on the basis, defendants …, defendants …, … attorneys and participating …’s Lawyer, 298 of CMK No. 5271.onsidering the amount and type of punishment, since it is not possible to impose five-year or less prison sentences and judicial fines regardless of the amount given by the courts of first instance in accordance with Article 286/2-a of CMK No. 5271 against the decisions of the regional court of justice regarding the rejection of the appeal on the basis, defendants …, defendants …, … attorneys and participating …’s Lawyer, 298 of CMK No. 5271. he REJECTED their objections in accordance with the communiqué in accordance with the article,
II- In the examination of the provisions established regarding the qualified looting and wounding crimes against the defendants …, …;
The defendant…’s defense was convicted of looting and wounding the defendant, the defendant … and the defense filed an appeal against the conviction for looting, and the participating lawyer … requested an appeal against the qualified state of the crime, stating that a 5-year prison sentence for qualified wounding and an acquittal of the defendant should be decided.fendant…’s defense was convicted of looting and wounding the defendant, the defendant … and the defense filed an appeal against the conviction for looting, and the participating lawyer … requested an appeal against the qualified state of the crime, stating that a 5-year prison sentence for qualified wounding and an acquittal of the defendant should be decided.
They requested a 5-year prison sentence for the crime of aggravated assault and that the defendant be acquitted. The lawyer, who participated in this decision together with the defense of the accused …, applied for an appeal on the grounds that the action constituted the crime of attempted manslaughter for both defendants.he lawyer, who participated in this decision together with the defense of the accused …, applied for an appeal on the grounds that the action constituted the crime of attempted manslaughter for both defendants. In this context, the preliminary problem is that the decisio.
The lawyer, who participated in this decision together with the defense of the accused …, applied for an appeal on the grounds that the action constituted the crime of attempted manslaughter for both defendants. In this context, the preliminary problem is that the decision of conviction for the said injury to the accused … and the decision of acquittal for the said injury to the accused … can be appealed against the criminal decisions made by the court of appeal at that place.
286 of the CMK entitled “Objection”. in the article;
(1) An appeal may be filed against the decisions of the criminal chambers of the regional court of appeal, except for those that are reversed.
>(2) However;
a) Regional court of appeal decisions regarding the rejection of an appeal filed by the courts of first instance for prison sentences of five years or less and criminal fines, regardless of the amount, are finalized,
b) Regional court of appeal decisions regarding first instance court sentences for prison terms of five years or less, for which no increase is made,
c) (Amendment: 20/7/2017-7035/20 art.) (Amendment: 20/7/2017-7035/20 art.) First instance court decisions regarding alternative sanctions converted from imprisonment sentences; decisions regarding all kinds of alternative sanctions and decisions regarding the rejection of an appeal on the merits, given by the regional court of appeal,
d) (Constitutional Court dated 27/12/2018 and e.:2018/71 K.) (Constitutional Court dated 27/12/2018 and e.:2018/71 K.:Revoked ) (Constitutional Court dated 27/12/2018 and e.:2018/71 K.:Revoked by Decision No. 2018/118; Re-enacted: 20/2/2019-7165/7 art.) All decisions of the regional court of justice, including those given for the first time by the regional court of justice, and those related to crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of t) (Constitutional Court dated 27/12/2018 and e.:2018/71 K.:Revoked by Decision 018/118; Re-enacted: 20/2/2019-7165/7 art.) All decisions of the regional court of justice, including those given for the first time by the regional court of justice, and those related to crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the first instance courts and require imprisonment of up to two years (including two years) and the corresponding judicial fines,
e) All decisions of regional courts of justice regarding the judgments given by first instance courts in cases requiring a fine,
f) (Amended: 18/6/2014-6545/78.) (Amended: 18/6/2014-6545/78. art.) Juadecisions regarding the rejection of an appeal on the merits regarding first instance court decisions regarding the confiscation of pr (Amended: 18/6/2014-6545/78. art.) Only decisions regarding the rejection of an appeal on the merits regarding first instance court decisions regarding the confiscation of property or benefits or their absence,
g) Acquittal de) (Amended: 18/6/2014-6545/78. art.) Only decisions regarding the rejection of an appeal on the merits regarding first instance court decisions regarding the confiscation of property or benefits or their absence,
g) Acquittal decisions given by the court of first instance in cases related to crimes that require a prison sentence of ten years or less or a fine, (…) (2) Decisions regarding the rejection of an appeal application on the merits,
h) (Changed: 18/6/2014-6545/Md. 78) That there is no room for the dismissal of the case or the imposition of a penalty in relation to the first-degree security measure,
Decisions made by the district court of justice in the event of recourse to legal remedies or decisions regarding the rejection of the appeal application on the merits,
i) Decisions of the regional court of justice containing more than one penalty and decision with the same provision, provided that they remain within the limits specified in the above paragraphs.ecisions made by the district court of justice in the event of recourse to legal remedies or decisions regarding the rejection of the appeal application on the merits,
i) Decisions of the regional court of justice containing more than one penalty and decision with the sam
a) In the Turkish Penal Code:
Insult (article 125, third paragraph),
Threatening to fear and panic among the public (article 213)
Incitement to commit a crime (article 214),
Praising the crime and the criminal (article 215),
Incitement to hostility or contempt of the public (article 216),
Incitement to act against the law (article 217),
Insulting the President (article 299),
Insulting the symbols of state sovereignty (article 300)
Insulting the Turkish Nation, the State of the Republic of Turkey, the institutions and organs of the State (article 301),
Armed organization (article 314)
Crimes of cooling people off from military service (article 318). b) The crimes contained in the second and fourth paragraphs of Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the second paragraph of article 7.rimes of cooling people off from military service (article 318). b) The crimes contained in the second and fourth paragraphs of Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism LawCrimes of cooling people off from military service (article 318). b) The crimes contained in the second and fourth paragraphs of Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the second paragraph of article 7. c) rimes of cooling people off from military service (article 318). b) The crimes contained in the second and fourth paragraphs of Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the second paragraph of article 7. c) The crimes contained in the first paragraph of
Article 28 of the Law on Meetings and Demonstration Marches, Articles 31 and 32.”
The arrangement is located at.
CMK’s 286(1). according to the provision of the article; All decisions are subject to the appeal route, except for the overturning decisions made by the courts of appeal.
Exceptions to this rule; CMK’s 286. it is regulated in the second (nine (9) paragraphs) and third paragraphs of the article.
One of the important principles that govern criminal procedure is that exceptions cannot be subject to broad interpretation against the defendant.
>First of all, it should be noted that Article 286 of the CMK the exceptions in the third paragraph added to the article by Lawne of the important principles that govern criminal procedure is that exceptions cannot be subject to broad interpretation against the defendant.
It is clear that there are no exceptions in the other subparagraphs of the second paragraph. However, taking into account the case law of the General Criminal Assembly of the Court of Cassation, it has been concluded that the issue should be examined in detail in terms of the exceptions in article b). decision dated 04/10/1993 and numbered 2-187/222.
In accordance with the Supreme Court Criminal General Board precedents accepted by our department, it is possible to appeal against the criminal nature of the decisions, even if they are finalized in terms of type and amount.n accordance with the Supreme Court Criminal General Board precedents accepted by our department, it is possible to appeal against the criminal nature of the decisions, even if they are finalized in terms of type and amount. Accordingly, for example, if a finalized judicial fine has been imposed for the crime of simple wounding, the participant or the Publicn accordance with the Supreme Court Criminal General Board precedents accepted by our department, it is possible to appeal against the criminal nature of the decisions, even if they are finalized in terms of type and amount.
Accordingly, for example, if a finalized judicial fine has been imposed for the crime of simple wounding, the participant or the Public prosecutor may appeal against this provision on the grounds that the act constitutes the crime of attempted manslaughter. Our Department is of the opinion that these case law should also be applied in the post-appeal appeal. So
, since the participating defense attorney has applied to the appeal path in terms of sufficiency for the final decision of the defendants for the crime of injury, the provisions issued for the crime of extortion and injury will be examined on appeal;
288 of CMK No. 5271. in the article, “The objection is made on the grounds that the provision is unlawful. Failure to apply or improper application of a rule of law is unlawful.”, 294 of the same Law.88 of CMK No. 5271. in the article, Failure to apply or improper application of a rule of law is unlawful.”, 294 of the same Law. in the article, “The appellant has to show why he wants the provision to be overturned in the appeal petition. The reason for the appeal may only be related to the legal aspect of the judgment.” and 301 of the same Law. in its article, “The Supreme Court examines only the issues mentioned in the appeal petition and the events showing this in the appeal petition if they were caused by procedural deficiencies.” it is said.
The defendant’s appeal was arranged in the form of …, the defendant’s request for appeal is not sufficient evidence to punish the defendant, even if it is assumed that he participated in the crime, the nature of the crime is attempted theft, the defendant made a defense through SEGBIS, but the right to defense was violated because it was not fully and completely recorded in the record, the reasons for the discount were not applied, the defendant’s … defense’s request for appeal did not constitute conclusive and sufficient evidence about the defendant, the principle of benefit of the accused from suspicion was not observed, the defendant should be acquitted; during the examination conducted for the reasons mentioned above, it was understood that the defendant’s request for appeal was ….
When we look at the formation and content of the file, it has been understood that there is no inaccuracy in the provisions provided for the crime of looting.during the examination conducted for the reasons mentioned above, it was understood that the defendant’s request for appeal was ….
When we look at the formation and content of the file, it has been understood that there is no inaccuracy in the provisions provided for the crime of looting.
In addition, CMK’s 289. the existence of any of the exact cases of illegality listed in the article could not be determined in the file.
According to the trial and the content of the file, it has been understood that there is no incompatibility in terms of reasons for appeal in the provisions prepared for the crime of qualified robbery, and the 302/1st article of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271ccording to the trial and the content of the file, it has been understood that there is no incompatibility in terms of reasons for appeal in the provisions prepared for the crime of qualified robbery, and the 302/1st article of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 iding to the trial and the content of the file, it has been understood that there is no incompatibility in terms of reasons for appeal in the provisions prepared for the crime of qualified robbery, an