22 Mar THEFT-LOW VALUE OF THE ITEM- SUPREME COURT DECISION
T.C.
Supreme
17. Criminal Department
Base No:10811/2015
Decision No:2016/2841
D. Date:2.3.2016
COURT : Criminal Court of First Instance
Crime : Theft
SENTENCE : Conviction
The judgment given by the local court was examined by appeal and discussed and considered as necessary:
In the criminal record of the accused, ….. 6. Despite the fact that the Criminal Court of First Instance has a repeated main ex-convict issued by Decree No. 2006/589-2007/372 and his conditions have been established, it is about 58 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 5237. non-application of the article has not been made as there is no appeal against the reason for the violation;
According to the contents of the files and trial minutes, the legally valid and favorable evidence collected and discussed at the decision site, the justification and the judge’s discretion; it was understood that there was no violation of the procedure and the law in admitting and qualifying that the crime was committed by the defendant, and other reasons for the appeal were not considered on the spot.
But;
1-Although the act in the form of theft of insulation materials left in front of the construction for use in construction remains within the scope of Article 142/1-e and paragraph of the TCC, it is also covered by Article 141/1 of the same Law. implementation in accordance with the article;
2-The accused …….’s the insulating material 14 from the plaintiff to the construction area of the company where he left when he returned to steal and sell the stolen items within the scope of the investigation of the defendant and any place without the assistance provide by the police taken in response to being delivered to the complainant, the accused is not established without considering about the possibility of implementing the provisions of active repentance in 168/1 No. 5237 provisions of the Penal Code. determination of incomplete punishment by applying the article,
61/1 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 3-5237. according to the article, the fact that the value of the goods is more or less is a criterion for moving away from the lower limit in determining the basic penalty, and the fact that the value of the goods subject to the crime of theft is less is 145 of the Turkish Commercial Code. the fact that it is regulated separately in the article shows the importance that the legislator attaches to the fact that the value of the goods is low in the crime of theft. As stated in the case law No. 6/242-291 of the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Cassation dated 15.12.2009, the opinion “… to take only what is as much as necessary and as little as it is worth while there is an opportunity to take more” is 145 of the TCC. although it is not possible to completely reject it in the application of the article, it is also not possible to limit the article to this definition alone. 145. both the initial form and the modified form of the article are based on the fact that, by common definition, the value that constitutes the subject of the crime of theft is small. 145 of the TCK. according to the article, in order to make a discount on the punishment given to the perpetrator, the goods
it is enough that its value is low, and the prevailing discount rate is 3% of the TCC. he must determine it in such a way that it is “proportional to the weight of the verb being committed”, as provided for in his article. If a decision is made to refuse to pay a fine for a lack of value, “the way and characteristics of the crime were committed” should also be taken into account, as well as the lack of value of the goods. 145 of the TCK. the judge is granted the right of discretion in the application of the article, and the judge should exercise his discretion without arbitrariness in using it, in accordance with each concrete event, by giving legal and sufficient justification.
In a concrete case, in the face of the defendant stealing insulation material worth 60.00 TL from the construction site of the client on the date of the crime; due to the fact that the value of the property constituting the subject of theft is low, the TCC 145. failure to observe that a discount must be made at a rate to be determined from the penalty imposed in accordance with the article,
4TH.C. 53 of the Constitutional Court, the TCC. in accordance with the decision to cancel the cancellation decision No. 2014/140 and Decision No. 2015/85, which are related to the article, were published in the Official Gazette No. 29542 on the day of 24.11.2015 and 53 of the Turkish Commercial Code on the basis of the cancellation decision No. 2014/140. there is an obligation to re-evaluate the deprivation of rights in the article,
It required a breakdown, the defendant ……..’s appeal of the reasons is seen in this regard, since the reasons above tebligname provision as a violation of the CORRUPTION of law 1412 Article 326/last vested rights pursuant to the defendant’s promotion, it was decided unanimously on 02.03.2016.
You can read others by clicking here.
No Comments