T.R.
SUPREME COURT
- CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
E. 2014/15102 K. 2014/14597 T. 8.7.2014
CASE: By appealing the judgment rendered by the local court; After reading the file according to the nature of the application, the type of punishment, its duration and the date of the crime, the necessity was discussed and considered:
DECISION: Since the objection of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation, dated 1.5.2014 and numbered 7-2011-152425, was deemed appropriate, the decision of our Chamber dated 19.2.2014 and numbered 2013/2164-2014/3780 was abolished and in the examination made;
1- ) On the date of the crime, the defendant’s action is smuggling stipulated in Article 3/5 of the Law No. 5607 in terms of smuggled sugar, and at the same time, additional 5/1 of the Law No. 5015 in terms of smuggled fuel. As per Article 44 of the TCK No. 5237, the defendant should be sentenced in accordance with the additional article 5/1 of the Law No. 5015, which stipulates the heaviest penalty for his single act consisting of transporting sugar and fuel, but is sentenced to two separate crimes in writing,
2- ) According to the acceptance;
a-) Deciding to postpone the prison sentence convicted for violating the law no. 5015, despite the fact that the 58th article of the TPC was not implemented and that he has a criminal record preventing the postponement, for the accused who has been sentenced to more than three months in prison for a repetitive intentional crime,
b-) Considering that the subject goods do not constitute the whole or a weighted part in terms of quantity or volume, according to the load of the transport vehicle, and the value of the contraband and the value of the transport vehicle, which is decided to be confiscated, the confiscation is determined in Article 54/3 of the TCK No. 5237. Deciding on the confiscation of the transport vehicle instead of its return, considering that it would be unfair within the scope of the article,
CONCLUSION: As it is against the law, the defendant’s objections to the appeal were deemed appropriate in this respect, the verdict was rendered in Article 8/1 of the Law No. 5320. It was unanimously decided on 08.07.2014 that the defendant’s right vested in punishment in terms of the reason for the annulment no.