T.C.
SUPREME
12. CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
E. 2016/1417
K. 2017/6429
T. 19.9.2017
* Causing an accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of the vehicle despite the straight line of lanes and the overtaking ban sign indicating that there is a ban on overtaking ( admission of the defendant to have committed his act with conscious taxis and about TCK. Md. While a provision should be established by the implementation of 22/3, it should be accepted that the action was committed by Simple Tax, and that it was criminally mistaken. )

* Taxicab killing (showing that there is a ban on overtaking, overtaking the vehicle in front of the vehicle despite the straight line of lanes and the ban sign of overtaking caused the accident with the witness statements fixed from the entire file scope of the defendant’s action with conscious taxicab is accepted and about the TCK. Md. While a provision should be established by the implementation of 22/3, it should be accepted that the action was committed by Simple Tax, and the lack of a penalty determination against the accused by delusional misconception. )

* Conscious taxis (TCK on the admission that the defendant committed his action with conscious taxis, which is fixed from the scope of the whole file by overtaking the vehicle in front of him despite the flat lane line and the overtaking ban sign, which indicates that there is no overtaking ban, and with the witness statements that he caused the accident. Md. While a provision should be established by the implementation of 22/3, it should be accepted that the action was committed by Simple Tax, and the lack of a penalty determination against the accused by delusional misconception. )

5237 / m.22/3, 62 summary: indicates Prohibition of overtaking the vehicle in front of the vehicle despite the straight line of lanes and Prohibition of overtaking sign with the witness statements caused by the accident and all files fixed in the scope of the defendant’s action with conscious admission and about the TCK 22/3. while a provision should be established by the application of the article, the determination of the missing penalty against the accused is not accurate by acknowledging that the action was committed by Simple Tax, and by being deluded in criminal nature.

Case: the conviction of the defendant on the charge of taxidermy killing was appealed by the defendant’s defence and the deputy of the participants and the file was examined and considered necessary:

Decision: according to the trial, the evidence collected and shown at the decision place, the opinion and discretion of the court in accordance with the results of the prosecution, according to the scope of the file examined, the defendant’s defense stated that the crime laid on the defendant was not fixed, incomplete examination was done, the defect, the amount of the penalty, the rejection of Appeals that the clause should not be applied and that the driver’s license should be taken long term,

But;

On 16.10.2013 at 18.20 hours, the accused driver’s vehicle under the management of the settlement outside, 7 meters wide, without lighting, two-way, bends, incline, dry, asphalt pavement road while cruising, entering the opposite direction lane with the front parts of the car under the administration of the other driver in the direction of the bus as a result of hitting the front parts of the; 22/3 of TCK on the acceptance and acceptance that the defendant committed his action with conscious taxis, which is fixed from the scope of the entire file with witness statements that he caused the accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him despite the straight line of lanes and the overtaking ban sign. while a provision should be established by the application of the article, the determination of incomplete punishment on the accused by accepting that the action was committed by Simple Tax, and by making a criminal error,

Conclusion: it is against the law and the appellate objections of the deputy of the participants are thus seen in place, so the provision is for these reasons that the law No. 5320 8. under Article 321 of the Cmuk No. 1412, which is still being implemented. it was decided unanimously on 19.09.2017 that the clause should be annulled in accordance with the request.