SUPREME COURT 18. Criminal Department
2015/9759 E .
2015/13708 K.
OFFENSE : Insulting
JUDGMENT : There is no place for punishment
An appeal is filed against the decision made by the Local Court, but the duration of the application is determined according to the nature of the decision and the date of the crime, and the participating attorney’s application for appeal is 318 of CMUK No. 1412. subject to the article. According to the article, the REJECTION decision was made and the file was discussed:
Since there was no reason for the rejection of the appeal request, the basis of the work was passed.
>It was found that the minutes reflecting the trial process in which the conscientious conviction was formed were not appropriate in the examination conducted according to the documents and the content of the justification.
But;
the defendant stated that no criminal judgment had been established due to the current trial and defamation due to partnerships and responsibilities based on participation before, also stating that it had been decided whether it would be performed in response to the tort, because the defendant gave it to participate in 1985 but could not get it back to withdraw the messages, the defense in the case decided whether a criminal judgment would be established without sufficient justification, without taking into account the principle of reciprocity, considering for a long time Dec,
Since the VIOLATION of the PROVISION is contrary to the law and contrary to the request in the notification, the participant … it was unanimously decided on 17.12.2015 that the attorney’s reasons for appeal were accepted to be valid and that the file should be continued from the preliminary stage of the trial and sent to the main / sentencing court for decision.