TC
SUPREME
CRIMINAL CHAMBER
E. 2014/15102 K. 2014/14597 D. 7/8/2014
CASE:
An appeal was filed against the decision of the local court; after reviewing the case file, taking into account the nature of the crime, the type of sentence, its duration, and the date, the appeal was deemed necessary and evaluated:
DECISION:
The appeal filed by the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office on May 1, 2014, under No. 7-2011-152425, was examined on its merits; upon acceptance of the appeal during the review, our Chamber’s decision dated February 19, 2014, under Case No. 2013/2164 – 2014/3780 has been revoked;
1-) At the time the crime was committed, the defendant’s act constituted smuggling and the transportation of contraband fuel as defined in Article 3/5 of Law No. 5607, and additionally constituted an organized crime as defined in Article 5/1 of Law No. 5/1 and specified in Paragraph 44 of Law No. 5237. Pursuant to Article 5015 of Law No. 5/1, which prescribes the most severe penalty for the sole act of transporting sugar and fuel, the defendant should have been sentenced under Law No. 5/1; however, a decision was rendered to convict him of two separate offenses.
2 -) Furthermore, based on the conditions of acceptance:
a -) Despite the fact that Article 58 of the Criminal Code was not applied and there was a criminal record preventing the suspension of the sentence, the request to suspend the prison sentence was rejected due to objections raised against Law No. 5015, even though the defendant had been sentenced to more than three months’ imprisonment for a repeated intentional offense.
b) The goods in question do not constitute the entirety or the predominant portion of the cargo of the transport vehicle in terms of quantity or volume; considering the value of the contraband goods and the value of the transport vehicle subject to seizure, the seizure number is TCK No. 5237, Article 54/3. Considering that it would be unjust within the scope of the provision, a decision was made to seize the vehicle rather than return it.
CONCLUSION: Since the defendant’s objections to the law have been duly examined as of this date, the decision under Article 8/1 of Law No. 5320 is in effect pursuant to Article 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 1412. On July 8, 2014, by unanimous vote, it was decided that the defendant’s right to be punished under Article 326 of the Criminal Code for the violation numbered 2-a must be upheld.