Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey 3.Criminal Division
\nBasis: 2016\/238
\nVerdict: 2016\/15323
\nDecision Date: 30.06.2016<\/p>\n
CRIME OF WOUNDING<\/p>\n
Summary: in the judgment established against the defendant, the Turkish Penalty Code is 86\/3.according to Article E, when increasing the result of the penalty \u201c1 year 15 months imprisonment\u201d instead of \u201c2 years 3 months imprisonment\u201d by calculating the excess penalty should be determined by correcting the provision.<\/p>\n
(5237 P. K. m. 53, 86) (5271 P. K. m. 221) (Antalya Court. 08.10.2015 T. 2014\/140 E. 2015\/85 K.)<\/p>\n
Case and verdict: the verdict given by The Local Court is appealed and the documents are read;<\/p>\n
As necessary, discussed and considered:<\/p>\n
24.11.2015 date and 29542 numbered Official Gazette of the Constitutional Court entered into force 08.10.2015 date and 2014\/140 esas-2015\/85 Decision No. 5237 numbered TCK 53. although some of the phrases in the article were canceled, the reason for the violation was not made, as this issue can be taken into account at the execution stage.<\/p>\n
1) in the examination of the appeals against the defendant for the sentence established for the deliberate wounding of the participant …;<\/p>\n
According to the trial conducted, the evidence collected and disclosed at the site of the decision, the belief and discretion of the court as a result of the prosecution, the reason shown and the practice of the defendant in accordance with the rejection of Appeals not seen in place of the request for appropriate approval of the provision,<\/p>\n
2) in the examination of the appeals against the defendant for the sentence established for intentionally wounding the participant …;<\/p>\n
Rejection of other objections not seen in place;<\/p>\n
A) in the provision established against the accused, 86\/3 of the Turkish Penalty Code according to Article e, the result is that the sentence is calculated as \u201c2 years 3 months imprisonment\u201d instead of \u201c1 year 15 months imprisonment\u201d.,<\/p>\n
b) the name of the participant in the sentence established against the accused…\u201c….. incorrectly spelled as CMK 221. to be treated in breach of Article,<\/p>\n
Conclusion: 8\/1 of law 5320 for this reason, since the defendant’s appeals were considered in place in this respect. article 321 of the code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412 in force. in accordance with article 322 of the code of Criminal Procedure 1412, the request is appropriate, but this issue does not require a retrial. in accordance with article 86\/3 of provision 1.\u201c2 years 3 months\u201d in paragraph on the application of Article e was removed and replaced by the phrase\u201d 1 year 15 months “and again in Provision No. 1″ defendant … ‘ on 28\/03\/2011; the witness …. regarded as a weapon against the rotary blade in a way that could not be eliminated with simple medical intervention, the act of the crime of intentional injury, wake up to;\u201d shape the sentence \u201c…..\u201c it was decided unanimously on 30.06.2016 that the provision should be corrected by leaving other parts in the same way by writing the statement \u201d … ” instead of removing the statement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey 3.Criminal Division Basis: 2016\/238 Verdict: 2016\/15323 Decision Date: 30.06.2016 CRIME OF WOUNDING Summary: in the judgment established against the defendant, the Turkish Penalty Code is 86\/3.according to Article E, when increasing the result of the penalty \u201c1 year…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n