T.C. SUPREME COURT<\/p>\n
3.Criminal Department
\nBase 2015\/34137
\nDecision: 2016\/15145
\nDate of Decision: 28.06.2016<\/p>\n
SIMPLE INJURY OFFENSE \u2013 THE NEED TO APPLY A MINIMUM REDUCTION IN THE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE \u2013 INCOMPLETE DETERMINATION OF PUNISHMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BY APPLYING A DISCOUNT AT THE WRONG RATE \u2013 NO REASON TO OVERTURN BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPEAL AGAINST IT \u2013 APPROVAL OF THE VERDICT<\/p>\n
SUMMARY: The sentence of the accused is commuted from Article 29 of the TCC No. 5237. in accordance with the article, a minimum hadden discount should be applied, while there was no appeal against the incomplete determination of punishment against the defendant by applying a discount of (1\/2), no reason for the violation was made.<\/p>\n
(5237 P. K. m. 29, 53) (5320 P. K. Late. m. 2) (6217 P. K. m. 26) (ANY. MAH. 08.10.2015 T. E. 2014\/140 2015\/85 K.)<\/p>\n
Case and Decision: The provisions issued by the local court are appealed and the documents are read;<\/p>\n
It was discussed and considered as necessary;<\/p>\n
1) In the consideration of october appeals to the additional decision on the refusal of the defendant’s appeal;<\/p>\n
26 of the Law No. 6217 of 31.03.2011, which entered into force on 14.04.2011, on the judicial fine imposed. provisional article 2, which is added to the Law on the Form of Enforcement and Application of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5320. since it is final in accordance with the article, there is no procedural and illegal aspect to the decision on the refusal of the bet, there is no Additional Decision No. 2015\/2014\/972 October- 2015\/538 on the rejection of the defendant’s appeals and the rejection of the Additional Decision No. 24\/08\/2015,<\/p>\n
2) In the examination of appeals against the verdict of conviction established for intentional wounding against the accused …;<\/p>\n
In the incident between the accused and the victim, the defendant’s sentence was commuted on the grounds that \u201cthe first unjust act cannot be proven by any doubt, conclusive, objective evidence, far from who it originated from\u201d by DEC 29 of the TCC No. 5237. in accordance with article 53 of the TCC No. 5237 of 08.10.2015 of 2014\/1401-2015, which entered into force by publication in the Official Gazette No. 29542 of the Constitutional Court, as there is no appeal against the determination of incomplete punishment against the accused by applying a discount of (1\/2), while a minimum hadden discount should be applied. although some of the provisions in the article have been canceled, these considerations have not been made the reason for the violation, since they can be taken into account at the stage of execution.<\/p>\n
It was decided unanimously on 28.06.2016 to APPROVE the verdict by rejecting the defendant’s appeals based on the evidence collected and disclosed at the place of decision, the Court’s belief and discretion formed as a result of the prosecution, the justification and practice shown, and the defendant’s appeals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. SUPREME COURT 3.Criminal Department Base 2015\/34137 Decision: 2016\/15145 Date of Decision: 28.06.2016 SIMPLE INJURY OFFENSE \u2013 THE NEED TO APPLY A MINIMUM REDUCTION IN THE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE \u2013 INCOMPLETE DETERMINATION OF PUNISHMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BY APPLYING A DISCOUNT AT THE WRONG RATE \u2013…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1,211],"tags":[217,223,220,218,1165],"yoast_head":"\n