HEAD OF THE HIGH CRIMINAL COURT;
OBJECTING INTERVENTION :

Acting :

Decision subject to appeal : … decision of the Criminal Court …/…/… dated, …/… principal and …/… decision numbered.

The matter consists of our objections to the decision of the Criminal Court to hold back the statement of the principle and the decision of the court of Cassation with respect to the defendant in its history.

INSTRUCTIONS :

1 -) … the decision of the Criminal Court… to withdraw the statement of the verdict against the accused … at the end of the trial for his crime … / … / … is not in accordance with the legal regulations and the law. That is to say;

2 -) 231 of the Criminal Procedure Law No. 5271. according to the provisions to be turned back to the announcement of the award to be decided; to be fined two years or less imprisonment or criminal sentence imposed, the defendant previously has been convicted of a deliberate offense finding, the court, considering the defendant’s personality traits with the attitudes and behaviors of the trial will commit a crime again and to reach conclusions about whether the victim or with the crime incurred by the public, right back, or compensation must be eliminated before a crime by making. As can be seen, in order to be able to decide whether to delay the announcement of the sentence given to the defendant, it is necessary to have four conditions together and to have an opinion made by the court in respect of these four conditions.

3.although the sentence is … months, and the defendant has not been convicted of a premeditated crime before, there has been no evaluation by the court regarding whether the defendant will not commit a crime again, taking into account his personality characteristics and his attitude and behavior at trial, and whether the damage suffered by our client during the crime has not been compensated, and no justification

4 -) The defendant … made threatening statements against our client during the trial … / … / … and this was passed into the minutes of the trial as a result of our insistence. In subsequent hearings, the defendant’s disturbing behavior continued, but it was not possible to pass them on to the minutes of the trial. In order to ascertain this fact, the hearing may be heard from the audience and the persons named. However, the court did not consider the defendant’s position, and no evaluation was made in the reasoned decision on the condition that “the defendant will not commit a crime again” as required by the law. This is state law 232. it is also against the provision of the clause.

Legal reasons: 5271 S. K. m. 231, 232.

Conclusion and request : for the reasons described above, we request and object on behalf of our client that the decision of the Criminal Court to re-examine the sentence given by the Criminal Court to abolish the decision to recant the sentence given for the defendant, and that, for the reasons mentioned in the explanations section, “there is no room for reclamation of the sentence” and …/ …/ …