TR HIGH COURT
6th Criminal Chamber Original No:2011/21386
Decision No: 2014/14108 Decision Date: 08.07.2014
LOADING THE HOUSING OR ITS ADDITIONS – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND THE QUALITY OF THE PRISON INSTITUTION
ACTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CRIME OF RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY WRONG – TERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
SUMMARY: Defendant V. ….. has legal receivables from A. ….
defendant Ş…. the act of forcing the participant to sign a promissory note together with the TCK numbered 765.
looting regulated in the article; The same law as the crime of looting regulated in Articles 5237
Regardless of whether it constitutes the crime of restriction of freedom regulated in the article, at the discretion of the evidence and in the nature of a crime
mistakenly establishing a provision necessitated annulment.
(765 SD art. 499) (5237 SD art. 109, 149)
Case: By appealing the decision of the Local Court; The nature of the application, the type and duration of the punishment and the crime
File discussed by date:
Decision: According to the incident, the content of the file, the statements of the victims and witnesses and the evasive defenses of the accused,
participating A. …., accused V. ….. borrowed 1 billion TL and gave 2.5 billion TL promissory notes. promissory note
, The defendant has a debt of 2.5 billion TL due to usury, with a 7-month maturity of 1 billion.
The participant paid 1 billion TL to the accused V. when it was due.
, when the payment is requested to be written on the back of the invoice, defendant S. ….
a.
The defendants invited them to walk on the road under the pretext of speaking while sitting in the cafe.
they suddenly forced the suspect V. into the house of the suspect S. by holding a gun to his head and
3.5 billion TL and a blank bill were forcibly signed and released ten days later.
When they met the accused S. on the road, he said that he was saving money and that he would pay the bill.
He went to the prosecutor’s office, thinking that the previous suspect said that the invoice was approved.
The deed of which he complained and which was signed by the participant one week later, was followed up by a third party.
defendant V. …. in their defense in the early stages, from their spouses before the event date. He borrowed money from the suspect S., who did not admit the crime, and bought a 20 billion TL promissory note.
17.5 billion TL to participant A.
witness Cemal… 1 billion to A., who joined the defendant V. in exchange for the promissory note.
He said that he knew that the brother of the accused S. gave 2.5 and 5 billion liras to the witness S.…..
Witness Kadri …. On 17.03.2004 in return for giving mold to the accused V.
It was stated that the gun was stated by the prosecutor’s office in the search conducted in the house of the accused V., in which he stated that he took 20 billion banknotes and put them to death.
According to the participant’s statements, it was determined that the weapon was a dry-fired pistol.
20 billion debt to the participant in the cover letter of the law enforcement officers that the financial situation of the accused V. is not good
It was determined that he could not give and that the bill that was forcibly taken from the participant could be filled as 20 billion.
in the face of being understood;
Defendant V. ….. has legal receivables from A. ….
defendant Ş…. Article 499/1 of TCK No. 765 for the act of forcing the participant to sign together with the deed.
The looting regulated in the article;
The crime of restricting freedom regulated in article 109/2-3-(ab) of the same Law and looting regulated in articles 149/1-acd of TCK no. 5237.
In writing without considering the evidence, at the discretion of the evidence and the crime
mistaken judgment as a facility,
Conclusion: Defendants to be stopped V. …. and S. …..’s defense appeals on this point.
Since it is seen on the spot, the law no. 5320
OVER MONEY WILL BE CANCELED pursuant to the request, with the justification numbered 8/1 explained. By sending the article 326/last article of the CMUK numbered 1412
to protect the acquired rights of the accused in terms of the duration, type and amount of the punishment, 08.07.2014
It was unanimously decided on.