TC
Criminal Chamber Article No: 2011/21386
Decision No: 2014/14108 Decision Date: 08.07.2014
CRIME OF ROBBERY IN A RESIDENCE OR ITS ANNEXES – CRIME
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FORMATION OF THE CRIME,
THE ACTION YOU COMMITTED BY RESTRICTING FREEDOM AND MAKING A MISTAKE IN THE NATURE OF THE CRIME, BASED ON THE EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE,
DETERMINATION OF THE JUDGMENT – VIOLATION OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: The defendant V. …..A. …..participated in an amount exceeding the debt, …..the offender did not have a finalized debt
S. …. The crime of robbery regulated in Article 765 of the Turkish Penal Code
and the act of forcing the participant to sign a promissory note, which is also a crime of robbery under Article 5237 of the same Code,
constitutes the crime of restricting liberty as stipulated in the article,
and the judgment must be overturned if the crime of making a mistake in rendering the judgment has been committed.
(765 Pp. K. m. 499) (5237 PK m. 109, 149) Incident: Appeal of the conviction decision issued by the Local Court, according to the date the file was reviewed,
the nature of the application, the type and duration of the sentence, and the nature of the crime:
Decision:
Based on the circumstances of the case, the contents of the file, the statements of the victim and witnesses, and the defendants’ evasive defenses, A. …..borrowed 1 billion TL from defendant V. ….. and received a promissory note worth 2.5 billion TL in return. Since the defendant was a loan shark, he borrowed 2.5 billion TL in exchange for 1 billion TL with a 7-month maturity. When the maturity date arrived, the defendant V. paid 1 billion TL to the participant. When the participant requested that the payment be written on the back of the promissory note, the defendant S. ….. who was present,
Regarding the emergence of fame A. A week ago, when they said that it was not necessary because we were there and they rejected his request, while the defendants were sitting at the table, they called them over on the pretext of talking, and as they started walking down the road, they suddenly attacked defendant V. They forced the defendant into the home of defendant S., where they held a gun to his head. After ten days, they forced defendant S. to sign one 3.5 billion TL note and one blank promissory note and then released him. When they met on the road, he said he had saved money and would pay the promissory note, so the promissory note was approved because he thought his name was A. and that the last defendant had said so.
A week later, the complainant went to the prosecutor’s office and forcibly signed the promissory note he was complaining about, while in the case of defendant V., a third person… In his defense, he claimed that he had separated from his wife before the incident, that he had money because he had sold some of his belongings, that he had joined the defendant S. in the 17.5 billion TL case, that he had lent money and received a 20 billion TL promissory note, and that he did not admit to the crime.
In groundbreaking stages, witness Jamal did not admit to the crime…. Defendant V. knew that he had given 1 billion lira in exchange for a 1 billion lira promissory note to A.,
and that the defendant S.’s brother, witness …, and the defendant V.’s brother, S., had asked him to give them 2.5 and 5 billion lira promissory notes
and collect them. Witness Kadri … Defendant V.
Defendant V., who stated that he took a 20 billion banknote in exchange for providing information on the crime and gave it to the bailiff,
stated that a weapon was found during a search of the participant’s home, that the weapon was a dry gun, and that on March 17, 2004
in the upper section of the law enforcement authorities, that Defendant V. had imposed a debt of 20 billion on a participant with poor financial circumstances,
and that the share forcibly taken from the participant and which he could not pay could be filled with 20 billion,
Defendant V. …..A. Could not be found to have participated in an amount exceeding the debt amount
; the defendant, who had a legal claim against S. ….. act of forcing the participant to sign a promissory note was regulated under Article 499/1 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 765, and the act of robbery was regulated under Article 499/1.
; the crime of robbery; the crime of robbery, as stipulated in Article 149/1-acd of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237,
and the crime of restricting liberty as regulated in Article 109/2-3-(ab) of the same Code,
the judgment should be reversed due to an error in the assessment of evidence and the nature of the crime, without written review.
Conclusion:
The judgment should be overturned, as the defendants V. …. and s. ….. have raised valid objections in their appeals,
and the judgment should be overturned for the reasons stated above,
in accordance with Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320. Article 326 / CMUKN’s final article numbered 1412
the duration of the sentence—the protection of the defendant’s acquired rights in terms of type and amount, on 08.07.2014
the decision was made unanimously.