Thirty-six TL Seventy-five Cents Worth Of Cheddar Cheese And Chocolate Stealing The Defendant Is Punished?

24 Oct Thirty-six TL Seventy-five Cents Worth Of Cheddar Cheese And Chocolate Stealing The Defendant Is Punished?

T.C. SUPREME COURT

2nd ed.Criminal Department
Basis: 2015/1595
Verdict: 2018/164
Decision Date: 23.01.2018

Summary: in the event that the defendant attempted to steal cheddar cheese and chocolate worth 36.75 TL from the convenience store he entered as a customer, according to the value determination minutes, the penalty cannot be waived as to the manner and characteristics of the crime committed, although the amount of the goods that constitute the subject of theft is less than the

(5237 P. K. m. 3, 61, 141, 145) (5271 S. K. m. 231) (YCGK. 15.12.2009 T. 2009/6-242 E. 2009/291 K.)

The file was examined and considered necessary;

Other appellate appeals have not been seen in place, according to file content.But;

1-5237 No. 145 of TCK. article 522/1 of Law No. 765 on the concept of” scarcity of goods”. considering that the “lack of value” is a separate and new concept specific to the law No. 5237, and that the characteristics of the event, the personality of the accused and the specific caste can also be evaluated and applied by showing the legal and sufficient justifications.; in the case where the defendant attempted to steal cheddar cheese and chocolate worth 36.75 TL from the convenience store he entered as a customer, according to the value determination minutes; No. 5237 of TCK 145. not considering whether the article should be applied or not,

2-it was decided that there was no place for the defendant to be held back from the announcement of the verdict, while CMK 231. the objective (objective) and subjective conditions mentioned in the article should be evaluated and the reasons for this should be shown; the decision to withdraw the statement of the provision in the criminal record of the accused does not constitute an obstacle to the application of the provisions to withdraw the statement of the provision; the same law shows in Article 231/6-c that is another, 231 of the CMK, which is sought for the decision to hold back the disclosure of the sentence because of the absence of any material damage which the judge can determine by a simple investigation, that the damage which will be based on the complete removal of prior to the crime or by compensation is material damage to be determined by a simple investigation, Article 6. considering that the objective conditions shown in paragraphs A and c of paragraph 231 of the CMK concerning the defendant are realized; Article 6. the legal status of the defendant should be determined according to the conclusion of the “the defendant has a criminal record regarding the suspension of the disclosure of the provision in the form of a legal and insufficient reason to decide that there is no place to delay the disclosure of the provision about the defendant,” which is required to be annulled, , as the appeals of the defendant were thus deemed to be in place, it was decided unanimously on 23.01.2018 that the sentence should be overturned as a request for these reasons.