01 Sep CAUSING A FIRE IN A WAY THAT ENDANGERS GENERAL SAFETY DELIBERATELY STARTING A FIRE
19. Criminal Division 2021/2529 E. , 2021/5616 K.
“Case Law Text”
Court :Criminal Court of First Instance
Crime: violation of law 6831
Sentencing: conviction
The sentence given by the Local Court is appealed; the duration of the application, the nature of the decision and the date of the crime
according to the file has been examined, the need has been discussed and considered:
As there were no reasons for the refusal of the appeal request, the work was moved to its merits.
According to the content of minutes, documents and justification reflecting the trial process in which conscientious blood is formed
investigations;
Act No. 6831 No. 110/2. stubble burning regulated in Article 76 / d of the same law as Article attribution
grass, shrubs, crop stems left over in the field after harvest, which can be considered stubble for the formation of crime
etc. such vegetation is less than 4 kilometers from the nearest forest area and is deliberately
he must have been cremated, according to the file, after cutting grass collected in the defendant’s field
it is understood that the fire caused by the defendant had grown and burned on the edge
, in an incident in which it was extinguished before reaching the wooded area, the defendant’s action did not constitute the crime of burning stubble
forest fire danger due to the fact that the fire burned at a distance of 2550 meters from the forest area
because the action is created, the general security regulated in Article 171/1-a of the TCK is compromised by installment
as a result of the error deducted in determining the merit of the crime, without regard to the fact that it gives the body to the crime of insertion
to be made in written form,
By admissions;
1-141 of the Constitution, 34 and 230 of the CMK. defendants, victims of court decisions in accordance with the articles,
In a way that will make the public prosecutor and everyone believe and allow the supervision of the Supreme Court
need to. In order for the Supreme Court to conduct a consistency check on the grounds; all the data on which the decision is based,
the conclusions reached by the court regarding these data are based on the statements of the claims, the defense, and the victims and witnesses
it is clear which narrative is superior to the other on what grounds.
as a result of the reflection of the sentence on its grounds and the conscientious blood reached by the court, which of the accused
making the legal qualification of these accepted verbs after it has been announced that their verbs are considered a crime,
the reasons for the increase and reduction in the penalty should be discussed in the legal context, this is explained
failure to comply with the considerations, without justification by referring to the decision to withdraw the disclosure of the provision
establishment of provision,
2-110 of Law No. 6831 on the accused. applied in determining the basic penalty in accordance with the article
failure to comply with the relevant paragraph of the article of law,
3-as a legal result of a conviction for premeditated crime, TCK No. 5237 on the defendant
53. failure to observe that deprivation of rights should be ruled in accordance with the article,
In the provision announced on 4-18.03.2016, the decision in favor of the participating administration, which represents itself by proxy
decision in the provision dated 03.04.2009 according to the minimum wage tariff of lawyers in force
that the power of attorney fee should be ruled by deducting the power of attorney fee received under it
non-observance,
Because it is against the law and the reasons for the appeal of the participating deputy are considered in place in this respect, the notification
PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
contrary to, the provision is 8/1 of Law No. 5320. No that should be applied in accordance 1412
CMUK’s 321. the matter is to be broken, the trial is to be concluded.
his sentencing was unanimously decided on 25/05/2021.
No Comments