T.C.
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
Base: 2016/1417
Decision 2017/6429
Date 19.9.2017

INDICATES THAT THERE IS A PROHIBITION OF OVERTAKING, CAUSING AN ACCIDENT BY OVERTAKING THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF IT DESPITE THE STRAIGHT LANE LINE AND THE PROHIBITION OF OVERTAKING SIGN (The Defendant’s Action is Conscious
Acceptance of What You have Committed With Taksir and About TCK. Md. While a Provision Should be Established by Applying 22/3, By Accepting that the Act Was Committed in a Simple Manner and That It was a Criminal Error)

KILLING WITH CONSCIOUS NEGLIGENCE (Indicates That Overtaking Is Prohibited) Despite the Straight Lane Line and the Overtaking Prohibition Sign, All With Witness Statements That It Caused the Accident by Overtaking the Vehicle in Front of It
Recognition that the Defendant Committed His Act with Conscious Consideration, which Is Fixed from the Scope of the File, and About the TCK. Md. While a Provision Should be Established by Applying 22/3, By Accepting That the Act Was Committed in a Simple Manner and by Making a Mistake of a Criminal Nature, the Incomplete Determination of Punishment against the Defendant is Not Accurate)

CONSCIOUS NEGLIGENCE  (Indicates That There is a Prohibition of Overtaking Despite the Straight Lane Line and the Prohibition of Overtaking Sign, The Witness Statements That He Caused the Accident by Overtaking the Vehicle in Front of Him, As Well as the Admission that the Defendant Committed His Act with Conscious Taxi, which Is Fixed from the Entire Scope of the File, and About the TCC. Md. While a Provision Should be Established by Applying 22/3, By Accepting That the Act Was Committed in a Simple Manner and by Making a Mistake of a Criminal Nature, the Incomplete Determination of Punishment against the Defendant is Not Accurate)
5237/m.22/3,62 summary : despite signs and overtaking overtaking flat ribbon line indicates that, with respect to overtake the vehicle in front all the witness statements that the cause of the accident was the defendant’s action with file scope, which is fixed by conscious about the adoption of the Penal Code committed taksir 22/3. while a provision should be established by applying the article, incomplete determination of punishment against the accused is incorrect by accepting that the act was committed in simple installments and by making a mistake of a criminal nature.
CASE : The verdict on the conviction of the defendant for the crime of murder by taxi was appealed by the defendant’s defense and the deputy of those involved, and the file was examined and considered as necessary:

DECISION: According to the trial conducted, the evidence collected and shown at the place of decision, the opinion and discretion of the court formed in accordance with the results of the prosecution, the scope of the file examined, the defendant’s defense was not fixed on the defendant, the crime was incomplete, the defect was examined, the amount of punishment, the amount of punishment for the participants, the amount of punishment, the defendant’s TCC 62. refusal of appeals on non-application of the article and long-term receipt of a driver’s license,
However; on 16.10.2013 at around 18.20, the accused was driving a 7-meter-wide, unlit, two-way, curvy, sloping, dry, asphalt paved road outside the settlement with the vehicle under the management of the driver, while cruising in the opposite direction, entering the opposite direction lane and cruising with the front parts of the car under his management
in an incident that resulted in the death of those in his vehicle as a result of hitting the front parts of the bus and injuring more than one person; despite the straight lane line and the overtaking ban plate, which indicates that there is a ban on overtaking
22/3 of the TCC about the witness statements that he caused the accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him, as well as the admission that the defendant committed his act with conscious consideration, which is fixed from the entire file scope, and about it. while a provision should be established by applying the article, incomplete determination of punishment against the accused by recognizing that the act was committed in simple installments and by making a delusion of a criminal nature,

CONCLUSION: Since it is contrary to the law and the appeals of the participants’ deputies are considered to be in place as of this moment, the provision is based on Article 8 of the Law No. 5320 for these reasons. it was unanimously decided on 19.09.2017 that CMUK No. 1412, which is still being implemented in accordance with its article, should be BROKEN in accordance with the request in accordance with its article.

You can read other articles and petitions by clicking here.