06 May A Verdict Of Acquittal Given Without Consideration That The Act Constituted The Offence Of Restricting Freedom
T.C.
CRIME OF LOOTING IN HOUSING OR ADD-ONS – OF THE ACT
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE OFFENCE OF RESTRICTING FREEDOM
IN THE DISCRETION OF THE EVIDENCE AND IN THE NATURE OF THE CRIME,
ESTABLISHMENT OF PROVISION – BREAKDOWN OF PROVISION
Summary: defendant V. …..A. participating in more than the amount of ‘ S receivable ….a legal claim from
absent defendant S. …. TCK No. 765 of the act of forcing the participant to sign the deed together with him?nun
looting in Article 5237 of the same law
in the discretion of the evidence, without regard to the fact that it constitutes the offence of restricting freedom regulated in the article
and it was wrong in the nature of the crime and the establishment of the sentence required to be overturned.
(765 P. K. m. 499) (5237 P. K. m. 109, 149)
Case: the sentence given by The Local Court is appealed; the nature of the application, the type of punishment, the duration and the crime
file interviewed by date:
Verdict: based on occurrence, file content, victim and witness statements and defendants ‘ evasive defenses,
participating A. ….’s defendant V. ….. 1 billion TL borrowed money, in return 2.5.billion TL promissory notes held,
due to the defendant’s usury, he owed TL 2.5 billion to 1 billion with a maturity of 7 months.
when due, the defendant V.paid £ 1 billion, made by participating
when they were asked to write the payment on the back of the note, the defendant who was with them was S. ….’friends of Fame
A. who joined a week later when they said they didn’t have to because they were.
sitting in the coffee shop, the defendants called to their side with the pretext of talking, to walk down the road
when they started suddenly, defendant V.the defendant, whom they forced into his house, s.at home with a gun to his head
ten days after they joined, they forcibly signed and released £ 3.5 billion and one blank bill
defendant S. when they meet him on the road, he says he’ll pay for the deed that he saved, his name is
the last defendant said that he believed that the deed had been approved.by going to the prosecutor’s office
he complained that the deed, which was forcibly signed a week later, was followed up by a third party
when he learned that he had been put, defendant V. …. in their defense on the stages, before the date of the event, from his wife
left, one part of the house due to sell your stuff to benefit the participating A.’e TL 17.5 billion
he borrowed money and bought a $ 20 billion bond, and he didn’t admit to the crime. if
the witness, Cemal, who at stages did not admit to the offending …. defendant V.the bond of the participating A.’e 1 billion
that he knew he was giving lira, defendant S.’s brother witness S….. the defendant is V.’s brother S.$ 2.5 and $ 5 billion
witness Qadri said he knew you wanted him to give you the bonds and collect them …. defendant V.in exchange for giving mold to
the subject of the crime is the defendant V., in which he testified that he took 20 billion Securities and gave them to execution.search of ‘ s home,
the gun stated in the statements of the participant was found, the gun was a dry-tight pistol, 17.03.2004 daylı
in law enforcement superscript, defendant V. …’s financial situation is not good to attend 20 billion debt
determination that it cannot give and that the deed taken by force from the participant may have been filled as 20 billion
in the face of being understood;
Defendant V. …..A. participating in more than the amount of ‘ S receivable ….a legal claim from
Synergy legislation and Case Law Program page 1/2
Esas No.:
Decision No:
SUPREME
6. Criminal Department
2011/21386
2014/14108
Decision Date: 08.07.2014
T.C.
absent defendant S. …. TCKnun No. 765 of the act of forcibly signing the deed to the participant together with 499/1.
the looting organized in Article; 5237 numbered TCKnun 149/1-a-c-d the looting organized in articles
it constitutes the offence of restricting freedom as set out in Article 109/2-3-(A-b) of the same law.
written judgment without consideration, in the discretion of the evidence and in the nature of the crime
establishment,
Conclusion: desecrated, defendants V. …. and S. ….. appeals of the defences in this respect
since it has been seen in place, to the deterioration of the provision such as request for the reason described, No. 5320
8/1 of the law. article 1412 sent to CMUKnun no. 326 / last article in accordance with the provision
duration of sentence-protection of the vested rights of defendants in terms of type and quantity, 08.07.2014
it was decided by unanimous decision in its history. (¤¤)
No Comments