29 Nov Deliberately Injure And Depriving The Person Of His Freedom
14.Criminal Division 2018/2958 E., 2018/2138 K.
“Case Law Text”
Court: Severe Criminal Court
Offence: willful wounding, deprivation of Liberty, simple sexual abuse in a way that impair a child’s physical or mental health
Sentencing: conviction
The provisions given by the court of first instance were appealed and the file was examined and considered necessary:
The verdict on the child who was dragged into the crime for wilful wounding is under review;
Supreme Court criminal General Board also adopted the decision of 21.06.2005 dairemizce 61/82 day and as emphasized in the decision may be appealed in terms of determining whether the legal regulations should be taken into account in the history of the provision, Article 26 of the law into force 14.04.2011 6217. provisional article 5320 added to the Law No. 2. as a result they dominated from imprisonment except cevrilenl with substance 3.000 TL 3.000 TL including TL criminal fines fines and thrown directly given certain qualifications as to the amount of crime is conclusive 1320 has not been able to appeal because, as the aforementioned provision of Law No. 5320 of Appeals for the 8/1. taking into account article 317 of Cmuk No. 1412. rejection under Article,
As for the appellate review of the provision on the charge of depriving the person of liberty of the child who was dragged into the crime;
109/3-F of TCK No. 5237 for the execution of the action against the child-aged victim in the punishment of the child being dragged into the crime. since the amount of the increase to be made in accordance with the article is made at half rate instead of one fold, the result is not effective against the penalty and again the action is performed for sexual purposes, the reason for the increase is to be shown as ”mental health impaired” in the form of wrongdoing is considered a material error on the spot.
The prosecution and defence with the evidence; the trial has been evaluated and appreciated, and the practice of the Act which is considered subutu has been made in accordance with the elements other than the criticisms, so that the child who was dragged into the crime has been refused the appeal of the defence which is not seen in the case of the,
As for the appeal review of the provision established on the charge of simple sexual abuse of a child in a way that impair the body or mental health of the child being dragged into the crime;
Considering the statements of the victim …in stages and the doctor’s report, since the court’s acceptance of the nature of the action is in accordance with the scope of the file, there is no participation in this opinion in the communiqué seeking to break it.
To the trial, to the evidence collected and shown at the decision place, to the court’s conviction and discretion in accordance with the results of the investigation and prosecution, to the rejection of other appeals which are not seen in place according to the contents of the file examined,
But;
58, 59, 60 and 61 of the Law No. 6545 which came into force on 28.06.2014 after the provision. Law No. 5237 with articles 102, 103, 104 and 105. 13 of the crimes against sexual immunity contained in the articles and Law No. 6763 which came into force on 02.12.2016. Article 103 of the TCK. 7/2 of the TCK No. 5237 against the reorganization of the article. article-paragraph ” if the law in force at the time of the crime is committed and the provisions of the laws that come into force afterwards are different, the law in favor of the perpetrator shall be applied and executed.”considering the provision of all the provisions of the previous and subsequent laws to be applied to the event by comparing the results of the resulting determination and the application of both laws in a way that allows the audit of the decision to be re-evaluated by showing the necessity,
As the appeals of the juvenile defender who was dragged into the crime were seen in place in this regard, the provision was amended 8/1 of Law No. 5320. article 321 of the Cmuk numbered 1412. its dissolution under the clause was decided unanimously on 22.03.2018.
No Comments