In its decisions during the YTCK period, the Court of Cassation accepted that a single act could give rise to multiple consequences, and that what should be understood from a single act is not a single consequence but a single action. Although a physical act constitutes a separate movement, what is meant by the movement being singular in a legal sense is that even if there are multiple movements in a natural sense, these movements are considered as a single movement in the assessment due to legal reasons.
In the case of a legal community, case law states that the singularity of an act or action does not mean the same thing in a natural sense, but rather in a LEGAL sense. Since Article 43, paragraph 2, and Article 44 of the Turkish Criminal Code state that multiple crimes can be committed with a single act, even though we have used the heading “unity of the act-multiplicity of acts,” we must specify that the purpose of the act is the movement and that this heading should be understood as “unity of acts-multiplicity of acts.” Excluding the relationship of consecutive crimes.
Since the act must be singular to speak of a relationship of unity, and if the act is truly multiple, a relationship of unity cannot be discussed, it is necessary to first explain what is meant by the concept of unity of action, which is the most important point of unity, and since it is assumed that the act is truly singular outside of unity at this point, its conditions must also be explained.