Causing The Death Of a Person By Overtaking Incorrectly Despite The Ban On Overtaking

12 Dec Causing The Death Of a Person By Overtaking Incorrectly Despite The Ban On Overtaking

T.C.

SUPREME COURT PENALTY OFFICE

E. 2016/1417 K. 2017/6429 T. 19.9.2017

CAUSING THE ACCIDENT WITH THE FACING OF THE VEHICLE BEFORE THE FLAT LINE AND THE PROHIBITION PLATE SHOWING THAT THERE IS A PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL ( Acceptance and Regarding of Negligence TCK. Md. 22/3, While A Judgment Should Be Established By The Implementation Of The Action By The Admission That The Action Has Been Committed By Simple Negligence And Mistakes In The Nature Of A Criminal) KILLING BY NEGLIGENCE (Despite the Straight Lane Line Indicating the Overtaking Prohibition and Overtaking the Vehicle in Front of the Vehicle with Witness Statements that Caused an Accident The Acceptance and About the Acceptance of the Deliberate Negligence of the Defendant Fixed within the Scope of the File TPC. Md. The Inaccuracy of Incomplete Penalty Determination About the Defendant By Accepting That The Action Was Committed By Simple Negligence While A Judgment Should Be Established By The Implementation Of 22/3 And By Making A Criminal Misunderstanding) CONSCIOUS NEGLIGENCE (Acceptance of Conscious Negligence of the Accused Who Has Caused Accident By Overtaking The Vehicle In Front Of The Vehicle Despite The Flat Lane Line Indicating The Overtaking Prohibition Sign and The Implementation of TCK Art. Accepting that the Action was Committed by Simple Negligence and the Inaccuracy of the Incomplete Determination of the Defendant by Making a Criminal Misunderstanding when a Judgment should be Established. 5237 / m.22 / 3,62 ABSTRACT: Despite the straight lane line showing the overtaking ban and the overtaking prohibition sign, the witness statements that caused an accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him and the acceptance that the defendant, who is fixed in the scope of the whole file, committed his act with deliberate negligence and about TCK ‘ of 22/3. While it is necessary to establish a provision with the application of the article of article, it is inaccurate to determine the incomplete punishment for the accused by accepting that the act was committed by simple negligence and by making a criminal error. CASE: The verdict on the conviction of the defendant for negligent killing was appealed by the defendant’s attorney and the attorney of the attendants, and the file was examined and considered necessary: DECISION: According to the judgment, the evidence collected and presented at the place of the decision, 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 attorney’s crime was not fixed, the incomplete examination was made, the fault, the amount of the penalty, the amount of the punishment of the attendant, The rejection of appeals against the accused regarding the non-application of Article 62 of the TCK and the need for a long-term license, But; On 16.10.2013, at 18.20, the vehicle under the control of the accused driver outside the residential area, 7 meters wide, without illumination, two-way, bends, slope, dry, asphalt pavement, while traveling on the road, entering the opposite direction lane and traveling with the front parts of the vehicle under other driver’s command In the event that resulted in the death of the occupants and the injury of more than one person as a result of the crash of the front of the bus; Indicates no overtaking despite straight lane line and no overtaking sign With the witness statements that caused the accident by overtaking the vehicle in front of him and the acceptance of the act of the defendant, who is determined from the scope of the whole file, with deliberate negligence and about the TCK 22/3. While it is necessary to establish a provision with the application of the article, by accepting that the act was committed by simple negligence and by making a criminal error, the determination of incomplete punishment for the defendant, CONCLUSION: It was unanimously resolved on 19.09.2017 that the provision is against the law and the appeals of the attorney of the attendants are considered appropriate for this reason, as per the article 8 of the Law numbered 5320, which is still in effect, in accordance with the article of CMUK numbered 1412. .