T.R. SUPREME COURT
6th Penal Chamber Main No:2011/21386
Decision No: 2014/14108 Decision Date: 08.07.2014
LOADING THE HOUSING OR ITS ADDITIONS – THE ACTION
WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CRIME OF RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY
WRONG IN THE VALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE QUALIFICATION OF CRIMINAL
ESTABLISHMENT OF JURISDICTION – TERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
SUMMARY: Defendant V. ….. has a legal receivable from A. ….
defendant S. …. the act of forcing the participant to sign the deed together with the TCK numbered 765.
looting regulated in article; With the crime of looting regulated in Articles 5237, the same law
At the discretion of the evidence, regardless of whether it constitutes the crime of restricting freedom regulated in Article
and the establishment of a sentence by mistake in the character of a crime necessitated annulment.
(765 S. K. art. 499) (5237 S. K. art. 109, 149)
Case: By appealing the judgment given by the Local Court; nature of the application, type of punishment, duration and crime
File discussed by date:
Decision: According to the occurrence, 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 issued 2.5 billion TL promissory note in return,
Due to the defendant’s usury, he owed 2.5 billion TL with a 7-month maturity of 1 billion.
when the due date, the participant paid 1 billion TL to the accused V.
when it is requested that the payment be written on the back of the bill, the accused S. ….
A.
While sitting in the cafe, the defendants invited them to walk on the road with the excuse of talking.
they suddenly forced the suspect V. into the house of the accused S. by holding a gun to his head at home and
3.5 billion TL and one blank bill were forcibly signed and released after ten days.
When they met the accused S. on the road, when he said that he was saving money, he would pay the price of the bill, his name was
The participant A., who thinks that the previous suspect said that the bill was endorsed, went to the prosecutor’s office.
The deed that he complained about and which was forcibly signed by the participant a week later, was followed by a third party.
accused V. …. in their defense at the first stages, from their spouse before the date of the incident.
17.5 billion TL to the participant A.
the accused S., who did not accept the crime, that he borrowed money and bought a bill worth 20 billion TL.
witness Cemal …. 1 billion to A., who participated in exchange for the defendant V.’s promissory note.
He said that he knew that he gave TL 2.5 and 5 billion dollars to the accused S.’s brother, witness S…..
Witness Kadri …. In exchange for giving mold to the accused V.
In the search conducted in the house of the accused V., in which he stated that he took 20 billion bills and put them into execution,
dated 17.03.2004, that the weapon stated by the participant in his statements was found, that the weapon was a dry-fired pistol.
20 billion debt to the participant in the cover letter of the law enforcement, where the financial situation of the accused V. … is not good
It was determined that he could not give and that the bill taken by force from the participant could have been filled as 20 billion.
in the face of being understood;
Defendant V. ….. has a legal receivable from A. ….
defendant S. …. 499/1 of the TCK No. 765 of the act of forcing the participant to sign the deed together with.
looting regulated in article; Looting regulated in articles 149/1-a-c-d of TCK numbered 5237
with the crime of restricting freedom regulated in article 109/2-3-(a-b) of the same Law.
judgment in written form without consideration of the evidence, by mistaken in the discretion of the evidence and in the character of crime
establishment,
Result: Necessary to quash, the defendants V. …. and S. …..’s defense appeals in this regard.
Since it has been seen on the spot, the provision will be OVERFINED as the request for the explained reason, numbered 5320.
8/1 of the law. by sending the article 326 / last article of the CMUK numbered 1412.
protection of 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.