Base 2017/2613
Decision 2019/2290
16.4.2019
• age-related disability
• threat
* intentional killing
• self-defense
• unjustified incitement
• insulting
COURT :
High Criminal Court
CRIME :
Premeditated murder, concealment of criminal evidence
PROVISION :
1-) 23 of the Law No. 281/1, 31/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code, CMK No. 231 and 5395 on the child … who has been dragged into a crime. imprisonment for 4 months in accordance with the articles and revocation of the announcement of the sentence
2-) Acquittal in accordance with Article 223/2-b of the CMK, since it is fixed that the child who was dragged into the crime … did not commit the crime of intentional killing thrown at him,
3-) About the child who was dragged into the crime …, TCK’s 81/1, 29, 31/3. imprisonment for 10 years in accordance with the articles,
4-) About the accused …; acquittal in accordance with Article 223/2-e of the CMK for the crime of premeditated murder.
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION
A child who has committed a crime …’s father’s petition dated 03.09.2018 were requested approval of the sentence given about his son also, if you who have attained 18 years of age as of the Petition Date…’s in this direction because it does not have a Will …’s it was decided to refuse the request for; deputy of the attendees about a boy who has committed the crime of hiding incriminating evidence because it does not have the authority to appeal the judgment established the crime, for this crime of Criminal Procedure of Appeals for the provision of proxy established.flour 317. a refusal has been decided in accordance with the article; accordingly, the review; the child who was dragged into the crime … and the defendant … were limited to the appeals of the defense counsel and the participants.
The collected evidence was examined at the scene of the decision and the child who was dragged into the crime was found guilty of intentionally killing the victim, the nature of the crime was determined in accordance with the results of the investigation, the reasons for distorting the defect from the reasons affecting the existence of unfair incitement, as well as the nature and extent of the reasons affecting the defect related to the age of the minor, and the reason for the discount was appreciated, the defense was rejected on convincing grounds, the child who has committed a crime and the defendant No. 5271 of the evidence obtained from the guilt of killing intentional about 223/2 CMK-e enough for a conviction under Article by showing the reasons and the absence of a degree qualification is recognized and appreciated was made and examined in accordance with the provisions given in the file to fix and misses outside due to destruction is unprecedented, because of the attorneys participating …and …’S should be condemned, and appreciation for self defence counsel a child who has committed a crime … it should discount the implementation of the provisions, with the rejection of other appeals that are directed to the presence of heavy propulsion and are not considered on the spot,
1-accused acquitted …’s in favor of opposite himself in vekaletnamelimudafi represented by trial attorneys ‘fees should hukmolunmas is not the person, if this issue again since it is against the law do not require a trial, the accused, counsel for attorneys’ fees in place of Appeal limited to the objection, therefore, seen cmuk of 322. in the article based on the authority, the provision for the paragraph section “vekaletnamelimudafi had acquitted the defendant represented himself since the minimum wage rate in effect on the date of sentencing law and acquitted the defendant is taken from the treasury of the fixed retainer 3.000 TL …’a provision of the phrase” about a child who has committed a crime and decided to corrected by the inclusion of an acquittal acquittal of thought in tebligname approved as,
2-In the examination of the conviction sentence established for premeditated murder against a child who has been dragged into a crime;
To create the file according to the court’s scope and assumptions, within days of the victim, the defendant by telephone by calling insult and threaten the victim in the scene who saw Transformers… next to the mosque on the defendant, or upon seeing a bright object that cannot be proved by the defense in the hands directly attacked with a knife to the victim with stab wounds and 6 deadly on their own, in the event that leads to the death of 17; considering the extent reached by the words and behaviors that are directed from the victim to the accused and constitute unfair incitement, the 29th amendment of the TCK, which regulates the practice of unfair incitement, provides for a prison sentence of 12 years to 18 years. during the implementation of the article, instead of determining the punishment from the upper limit, a sentence of 15 years in prison is imposed in writing and incomplete determination of punishment;
Since the appeals of the participants’ deputies were considered in place as of this moment, it was decided unanimously on 16.04.2019 that the provision should be OVERTURNED in accordance with the opinion contained in the communique.
this decision, made on 16/04/2019 in the presence of the Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Cassation and in the absence of the defendant … defense Lawyer … who made his defense at the hearing, was duly and clearly explained on 18/04/2019.
Decision of the Supreme Court – 3. CD., E. 2019/5757 K. 2019/13955 T. 27.6.2019
* wounding
• self-defense
• unjustified incitement
• insulting
• exceeding the limit
• intentional wounding
COURT :
Criminal Court of First Instance
PROVISION :
That there is no place for punishment
The decision given by the local court is appealed and the documents are read;
It was discussed and considered as necessary:
As stated in the decision No. 2013/808 and Decision No. 2015/314 of the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Cassation dated 13.10.2015, the TCC’s 27. in order to implement the article, first of all, there is a right that can be protected by self-defense, there are conditions for an attack, the requirement of “moderation” from the conditions of defense, exceeding the limit by violating it in favor of defense, ”exceeding the limit” arises from excitement, fear or fuss that can be excused, its conditions must occur, in a concrete event; the victim who saw the defendant arguing with a lady went to them and interfered and insulted the defendant, the defendant told the victim to go by saying that the lady in question was his wife, the victim injured the victim with a knife that the defendant took out of his pocket while the defendant was wrapped around his throat, and the Forensic Medical Examiner’s Office 2. According to the report of the board of specialization and number 2663 date 16.04.2014, right to rupture the spermatic cord in the same area and in the groin area spermatikkord injuries that cause bleeding in circumstance that puts your life in danger, and this injury, depending on the organs of the right testicle caused by the receipt of a lack of understanding of the nature of the loss of function of one of the organs in the face of the victim, the nature and location of the wound is taken into account the density of the defendant’s intent when under unjust provocation, instead of being punished for the crime of intentional injury, making a decision that there is no place to punish the accused by exceeding the limit in self-defense, which does not have a place of application in written form,
Since the appeals of the Public prosecutor of that place were considered to be in place as of this moment, the decision was therefore made in accordance with Article 33 of Law No. 6723. 8/1 of the Law No. 5320, amended by its article. article 321 of CMUK No. 1412, which is in force with Article. according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 27.06.2019 to be OVERTURNED in accordance with the request.
The decision of the Supreme Court – 1. CD., E. 2018/5387 K. 2019/270 T. 23.1.2019
• state of necessity
* intentional killing
• self-defense
• exceeding the limit
COURT :
High Criminal Court
CRIME :
Intentional killing
PROVISION :
TCK 81, 29, 53, 58, 54, 63. imprisonment for 18 years in accordance with the articles.
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION
318 of the CMUK requires the attorney of participants who do not have legal rights to request a judicial review. in the examination conducted by deciding to REJECT it in accordance with the article;
The evidence collected is examined in the decision of the defendant to the victim …’the crime of killing the realization of the TCL I deliberately acceptance, presence and the nature of the crime in accordance with the results of the investigation-determination, have been rejected for reasons convincing defense, examined according to the file because it is outside a given unprecedented misses aspect in the provision of conviction, the defendant’s sentence is more in favor if the discount should be applied the provisions of the defendant, counsel for the defendant in favor of self-defense, exceeding the limits of legitimate defence of necessity should be given to the state by applying the provisions of the acquittal of defendants, that the provisions of the discretionary discount should be applied, that the provisions of the provocation in favor of the defendant of the participants’ proxy should not be applied, that appeals directed to the nature of the crime and not considered on the spot should be rejected, but;
A month before the incident, which is subject to appeal, there was an argument between the defendant and the victim over the serving of pies and tea, and during the incident, the dec came to the same workplace where the defendant worked and made an abusive speech against the defendant and took the pointed screwdriver called ’miz’ in the hand of each other in a mutual move
in the face of the understanding that they were injured by the defendant during the incident, a reasonable discount should be made in favor of the defendant due to incitement, without regard to the written application and determination of excessive punishment about the defendant,
Since the appeals of the accused and his defense, as well as the participants’ deputies, which required the overturning, were considered in place as of this moment, the provision is therefore 8/1 of Law No. 5320. article 321 of CMUK No. 1412, which is in force with Article. its DETERIORATION in accordance with the article was decided unanimously on the day of 23.01.2019.
The decision of the Supreme Court – 1. CD., E. 2019/2123 K. 2019/4429 T. 21.10.2019
* intentional killing
• self-defense
• exceeding the limit
COURT :
Criminal Department
CRIME :
Intentional killing
PROVISION :
81, 62, 53 of the TCK. the main refusal of the request for an appeal for a sentence of 25 years in prison in accordance with the articles.
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION
In the examination conducted on the appeal of the conviction of the accused … for the intentional murder of the victim … by the defendant’s defense; Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 1. Criminal Department 24/11/2017 day and 2017/1026 E. 2017/934 K. since there was no hit in the numbered decision, the defendant’s defense was directed to exceed the limit in self-defense, the defendant did not mean to kill, and the appeals that were not seen on the spot were essentially rejected,
But;
The formation and adoption, according to the same working as a hostess at the Music Hall, the defendant’s wife … the victim …’s that there were problems between friends, these same problems for this reason the victims who runs the place …’discussion between LA and is a socially acceptable swear word of the event, ending with the wife of the defendant on the night shift when taking a left click with the tool friends …after a while…the victim …’s ride and the vehicle began to follow his defendant, the defendant standing in front of the tool by capturing the defendant, the defendant’s arrest, his wife …’s on descending from the vehicle, running on the victim with a knife, he attacked, …’la descending from the fight and the struggle between the victim who saw the defendant’s vehicle on involved in the fight, the victim made by the defendant hit the victim’s abdomen with a knife in his hand during the fight, the victim of a stab wound in the left upper quadrant of the abdomen 2.2 cm in length due to one large vessel that occur in the event that is the result of internal bleeding cessation;
1-one of the problems is the lack of participation between the defendant and the victim’s wife the night of the incident when he knows the problems that occurred in the absence of intervention, in spite of this, the victim, the defendant’s stand at the front of the vehicle although the primary concern followed and’LA to get in a fight that gave rise to the event given by the defendant, Article 29 of the Penal Code. according to the article, a minimum reduction in driving should be made, while an excess penalty should be determined,
2-Misspelling of the first instance court name, basis and decision number in the decision title,
Since the appeals of the defendant’s defense were therefore considered on the spot, the provision of CMK 302/2 required a reversal. in accordance with article 304/2-a of the same Law, the file must be corrupted in accordance with the thought in the communique 3. An example of an appeal to the High Criminal Court and the Supreme Court is the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 1. It was unanimously decided on 21/10/2019 that he was transferred to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Supreme Court of Cassation to be sent to the Criminal Department.
The decision of the Supreme Court – 1. CD., E. 2018/5360 K. 2019/271 T. 23.1.2019
* wounding
* intentional killing
• self-defense
• exceeding the limit
• unjustified incitement
COURT :
High Criminal Court
CRIME :
Intentional killing
PROVISION :
81, 29, 62, 53 of the TCK. imprisonment for 10 years in accordance with the articles.
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION
The collected evidence was examined at the scene of the verdict, the defendant …”s guilty plea to premeditated murder of the victim … was accepted, the nature and degree of the reasons for reducing the sentence to admirable were assessed in accordance with the results of the investigation, the defense was rejected on convincing grounds, since there was no hit other than the reason for overturning the conviction given according to the file under review, the defendant’s defense, the defendant’s action against the victim was a legitimate defense, in a legitimate defense exceeding the limit depends on what you have done within the limits, the nature of the crime, refusal of appeals that are not considered on the spot, which are directed to the absence of provocation by the participating deputy in the incident, the nature of the crime, the fact that the provisions of the discretionary discount should not be applied, but;
Considering the extent reached by the actions of the victim who is loyal to the victim and targets the accused and constitutes unfair incitement, trespassing and injuring the accused, a reasonable reduction in incitement should be made in favor of the accused, taking into account the maximum reduction in incitement in writing by determining the missing punishment for the accused,
Since the appeals of the defendant’s defense counsel and the participating deputy were considered on the spot as of this moment, the provision was therefore numbered 5320
8/1 of the Law. article 321 of CMUK No. 1412, which is in force with Article. in accordance with the article, the REFUSAL of the defendant’s request for release was unanimously decided on 23.01.2019, taking into account the nature of the violation, the amount of the sentence imposed, and the time spent in detention other than the appeal review.
The decision of the Supreme Court – 1. CD., E. 2019/3723 K. 2020/345 T. 5.2.2020
intentional wounding
• possible intentional injury
• attempted manslaughter
* carrying weapons without a license
• threat
* wounding
* intentional killing
• self-defense
* mutual insult
• exceeding the limit
• firearm
• unjustified incitement
• insulting
COURT :
High Criminal Court
CRIME :
Intentional killing, possible intentional wounding, intentional wounding and assistance in this crime, threats, insults, opposition to Law No. 6136.
VERDICT : 1- About the accused …;
a) For intentional homicide; Articles 81, 29, 62, 53 of the Turkish Commercial Code. imprisonment for 10 years and 10 months in accordance with the articles,
b) for the crime of wounding … with possible intent; 86/2, 21/2, 62, 53 of the TCC. imprisonment for 15 days for 2 months in accordance with the articles.
c) For the crime of intentionally wounding the victim …; Acquittal in accordance with Article 223/2-e of the CMK,
d) For insulting the victim …and the victim; Article 129/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code. that there is no place for punishment under the article.
2- About the accused …;
a) For the crime of intentionally wounding the victim …; 86/1, 86/3-e, 29, 62, 53 of the TCC. imprisonment for 11 months and 7 days in accordance with the articles,
b) For the crime of intentionally injuring the victim; 86/1, 87/3, 29, 62, 53. ingredients
in accordance with the sentence of 9 months and 10 days in prison.
c) For the crime of threatening the victim …; Acquittal in accordance with Article 223/2-e of the CMK,
d) For insulting the victim …and the victim; Article 129/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code. there is no place for punishment in accordance with the article,
e) For the crime of carrying an unlicensed weapon; Acquittal in accordance with Article 223/2-e of the CMK.
3- About the accused …;
a) For the crime of helping to intentionally injure the victim …; 86/1, 86/3-e, 39, 29, 62, 53 of the TCC. imprisonment for 11 months and 7 days in accordance with the articles,
b) For the crime of intentionally injuring the victim; 86/1, 87/3, 29, 62, 53. imprisonment for 9 months and 10 days in accordance with the articles,
c) For insulting the victim …and the victim; Article 129/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code. that there is no place for punishment under the article.
4- About the accused …;
a) For the crime of intentionally injuring the victim …; 86/1, 86/3-e, 87/3, 29, 62, 53 of the TCC. imprisonment for 11 months and 7 days in accordance with the articles,
b) For the crime of carrying an unlicensed weapon; 13/1 of Law No. 6136, 62, 52, 53 of the TCC. in accordance with the articles 10 months imprisonment and 500. A judicial fine of TL.
ON BEHALF OF THE TURKISH NATION
Since the participants do not have the right to request a judicial review, the amount of punishment also imposed on the defendant … is taken into account, the participants … and … and the defendant who participated … request a judicial review of the defendant … deputy CMUK 318. in accordance with the article,
Participants …, … and … about the accused; the victim … has no right and authority to appeal the provisions established for the crimes of threat and violation of Law No. 6136, since their deputies have no right and authority to appeal these provisions of CMUK 317. in accordance with the article, it has been decided to REFUSE.
Since there was no appeal against the acquittal of the accused for the threat against the victim, it was understood that this provision was not covered by the appeal.
The evidence collected is examined in the decision, the defendant …’s the victim …’I deliberately killing the victim with the intent of wounding possible …click the defendant’s intentional injury, the defendant with participating in the action …click on the victim …’t intentional injury, the defendant …’s, intentional injury, the defendant with participating in the action …click on the victim …’t intentional injury, the defendant …’s participating accused of …’with the action for the crime of violation of the provisions of the law, a realization of the TCL 6136 acceptance, presence, and the results of the investigation in accordance with a determination of the nature of the crime, to appreciate the nature and degree of the causes incitement struck with admiration and the discount overridden, their defense was evaluated and rejected on convincing grounds, the defendants …, … and … about; insult to the participant … and the victim, the accused … about; it was decided that there is no room for punishment for mutual crimes of insult against the participant …, the accused … about; click the evidence obtained from the crime of intentional injury participating …enough for a conviction and the absence of a degree qualification is recognized and appreciated by the court was made and examined according to the regulations issued in accordance with the provisions of the file causes destruction to disrupt misses would not be seen outside, as the defendant who is accused of acting and participating attendees …and… that should be given about the acquittal, the TCL to the realization, to stir up heavy, the announcement of the award to be left back, procrastination and redemption should be applied the provisions of the accused … and …’S …’was the attempted murder of action for e, the upper limit from the penalty should be given the provocation, in the absence of the defendant …’s …’e that the defendants should be punished for the crime of attempted murder against insult his crimes should be punished, driven reductions of the accused about the crime of killing is against the law for the extension of the participating counsel for accused’e the action for self-defense or self-defense in the presence of exceeding the limits of the conditions, in terms of the realization of the action in TCL for the victim, the accused …’s …’should be punished for the crime of insult against and miscellaneous matters, accused … the defendant … the defendant does not mean to kill, there are conditions for exceeding the limit in self-defense or self-defense, the nature of the crime and other issues, the defendant … the defendant must be acquitted, the acquittal must be decided, and other issues november rejected appeals that are not considered on the spot,
1 – Defendant …’s the victim …’I deliberately killing the victim with the intent of wounding possible …click the defendants … and …’S the victim …’t intentional injury, the defendant …’s No. 6136 law that is contrary to convictions of crimes, the defendants …, … and … about; … and participating in an insult against the victim, the defendant about participating in …’insult whether the provision of crimes against a criminal defendant about; join …click acquittal from the guilt of intentional injury tebligname approved in accordance with the provisions of Idea, the amount of the penalty DENIAL of the request for eviction of the defendant and the time elapsed after considering tututkluluk,
2- According to the occurrence and file scope; on one side, the other defendants in which the defendant and his sons, and … on the other side with the defendant, the victim and his brother …’s broke out between a group and mutual insults to become even more strained during the melee that is experiencing the result of the debate which the accused …’s, and with his gun, shooting the victim as a result by considering the effective range of the target at his …’s first from the abdominal area were injured …’s desperately with his intervention …’s the hand that held the weapon grasped, meanwhile, the gun to fire again the result …’s injured his foot in it this time, after that, it became clear that the one who seized the pistol, with the hilt of the gun, hit the defendant on the head with a stick that the defendant also held, and the defendant also held;
a) In terms of the provision established by the defendant’s … action against the participant …;
The instruments that are used in crimes in the killing of the availability of the targeted body region, with the incapacity of the victim is taken into account when showing the presence of effective intervention itself, depending on the action, the resulting intent to kill the accused, by assessing the weight of damage and danger “attempted murder” instead of a reasonable punishment for the crime, are deducted mistaken in the nature of the crime, and written in the format of “intentional injury” decided to be punished for the crime of,
b) With regard to the provisions established on the defendants …and … for the acts of wilfully wounding the participant …;
aa) held about Attending Kırıkkale yüksek Ihtisas hospital report dated 24/02/2015; be mentioned due to injury in the face of a hard trail that is available also in the report of the Directorate of forensic Kırıkkale be informed that the nasal bone is broken 25/08/2015 dated in the face of defendants on behalf of the Penal Code, 87/1-c and 3. it should not be considered that a report should be received on these issues in order to determine whether the paragraphs should be applied,
bb) In the face of the participating statement, witness statement and understanding from the scope of the file that the defendant … committed the crime of intentionally injuring the participant together with the other defendant … by hitting the participant … with a stick on the head, 37 of the TCC. in accordance with Article 39 of the TCC, without regard to the fact that he should be punished as a “perpetrator”, in written form, with a fallacy in the discretion of the evidence. punishment of the criminal in the capacity of “aiding” in the crime referred to by the sign of the article,
cc) Considering that the participant … caused a bone fracture by injuring the defendant … in the abdomen and foot with a firearm first, the behavior resulting from the participant … and creating unfair incitement directed at the defendants
taking into account the size it has reached; from the punishment assigned to the defendants, 29 of the TCK, which provides for a reduction in punishment from 1/4 to 3/4. during the implementation of the article, instead of a reasonable discount, an excess penalty will be imposed by making a 1/4 discount in written form,
Contrary to the law, since the appeals of the participating defendant …the defense and the participating defendant … the defense were considered in place as of this moment, it was decided unanimously on 05.02.2020 that the provisions would be OVERTURNED in accordance with the thought in the communique.
T.C.
SUPREME
CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
2016/2912
2017/3141
10.10.2017
A CRIME OF HELPING TO KILL BY DESIGNING (The Need for the Defendant to Take Advantage of the Provisions of Unfair Incitement – An Allegation that the Victim’s Actions Constitute Sexual Assault against the Defendant’s Sister and Mother, and that These Actions Are of a Long-Term Nature/ The Victim’s Behavior / Unfair Incitement)
THAT THE ACCUSED WILL BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF UNFAIR INCITEMENT (Where Excessive Punishment is Assigned /Designed to Help Kill the Accused – Unfair Incitement Provisions)
EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE ACCUSED (The Alleged Victim’s Actions Constitute Sexual Assault against the Defendant’s Sister and Mother, and These Actions Are of a Long–Term Nature – The Defendant Should Take Advantage of Unfair Incitement Provisions /Help to Kill by Designing)
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS (That the Cancellation Decision of the Constitutional Court Should be Observed in the Implementation of the Provisions of Deprivation of Rights on the Accused)
AN ERROR OF A CRIMINAL NATURE WAS MADE BY THE COURT (Admission that the Decision to Punish the Defendant for Aiding Intentional Homicide was Erroneous)
5237/m.31/3,39,40 62,81,82/1- a
SUMMARY: Considering the extent and continuity of the victim’s actions that constitute a sexual assault against the defendant’s sister and mother and that this act covers a long period of time in the trial of the accused for a crime of assisting in the murder by designing and taking into account the extent and continuity of the victim’s behavior involving unfair incitement, this is the reason for violating the determination of extra punishment by imposing a sentence of twenty-four years in prison, which can be applied in cases with less severity in writing instead of a reasonable punishment.In addition, the Revocation decision of the Constitutional Court should be observed in the application of the deprivation of rights provisions against the accused.The child who was dragged into the crime … decided before the date of the incident to perform his action together with the defendant …, showed decisiveness and perseverance in his decision, a reasonable period of time passed between the decision and the execution, and the conditions for designing were formed, it remained that; of Allegiance in accordance with the rules of the victim or the perpetrator or the verb you want from the person or the properties originated from, whether intentional action must be determined whether or not the perpetrator is qualified by creating the crime of killing, and catching it being understood that this was a necessity be maintained in Serik, the accused…’s the crime of killing a child who has committed a crime by designing aiding…’s “to kill by designing help” punished for the crime, instead of being deducted mistaken in the nature of the crime, and “deliberately to kill” help deciding the punishment for the crime is also a good aspect has been considered.
lawsuit :
lawsuit :
The case was reviewed, discussed and considered as necessary:
decision :
According to CMUK No. 1412, which was established about the accused for the crime of designing and killing the victim and which is subject to appeal if he/she is guilty of the amount of the punishment, CMUK No. 318. in the appellate examination, which is held in accordance with the article;
Made to judge the contents of the file, and place shown in the decision are evaluated together with the evidence that the court’s presence and the belief that occurs as a result of the investigation, and at the discretion of the defendant and a child who has committed a crime …’s the crime of murder, and the formation of partially proper acceptance and implementation of the defendants …, …, … and …’S obtained in terms of the evidence enough to convict the defendants of the crime of murder is not the case according to the defendants and the public about changing the nature of the crime, to be dropped due to the statute of limitations, according to the rationale described as adequate legal and in compliance with the law, a child who has committed a crime with a reason not based on defender of participating attorneys, counsel in the petition of appeal of the accused, the nature of the crime, the degree of provocation at the hearing, that constitutes the crime of intentional killing of the action that has the possibility of designing, 765 TPC found in favor of the defendants,…,…, … and …of counsel, should be appreciated in favor of the defendants acquitted directed that a separate retainer, and the place of Appeal that are not seen in the rejection of the appeal,
A-) Defendants …, …, … and … with acquittals issued for crimes of “instigating to kill by design” about the defendants … and … with changing criminal qualifications about the defendants … and … to APPROVE the provisions established in accordance with the procedure and law on the reduction of public cases due to the statute of limitations,
B-) In the examination of the provisions established on the accused … about “premeditated murder”, about the child who was dragged into the crime … about the crimes of assisting this crime;
According to the occurrence and file scope; the defendant …’s big sister, despite the age difference between the victim, the sexual relationship was found where an association with backwards from the date of the event and continued for about 5-6 years, …’s learning situation and to marry the defendant … …’s in spite of warnings, this relationship continues, even as that of the victim is not satisfied with the …’S mother had sexual relations with, in the face of all these events, the accused …’s, decided to kill the victim, to perform the action for the incident 3 days ago the defendant …’s wedding at the weapon will shoot with the excuse that provides, then a close friend of the victim who has committed a crime, the idea of killing a child …’m talking about he wanted to help himself from, …’S …’s plan to kill the victim in order to accept this request, together with the plan, in accordance with a child who has committed a crime …’s plan to murder accused unaware of …’obtained from the toolbox, then the defendant …’s also the interview with the victim under the pretext of calls …’s, got into the victim’s vehicle that come with your own car to get there and well acted a child who has committed a crime …’s also the defendant …’s followed them from behind the car that uses, after the parties drove for a while in this way, the accused …, who found the appropriate time, stopped the victim’s car and shot him with a pistol, then was in the waiting car, got into the vehicle used by the accused …, fled the crime scene and gave the accused … again to hide the pistol used in the crime;
1-) The TCK, which provides for a sentence of 18 years to 24 years in prison for unfair incitement against the accused ….nun29. made with materials during the application, considering the size and continuity of the victim of unjust provocation treated with a reasonable contains less vahamet in written form instead of punishment in the event that determination of punishment to be dominated more by imprisonment in practice 24 years,
2-) The accused is …about His53. article 2014/140 of 08/10/2015, published in the Official Gazette of the Constitutional Court on 24/11/2015, is an obligation to comply with the cancellation decision of 2015/85,
3-) The child who was dragged into the crime … decided before the date of the incident to perform his action together with the defendant …, showed perseverance and perseverance in his decision, a reasonable period of time passed between the decision and the execution, and the conditions for its design were created, it remained; DEC 40. the item is held in accordance with the rules of Allegiance or the perpetrator or the victim you want in the person of the verb, or whether it originated from the properties of the action must be determined by whether or not the perpetrator is creating the crime of intentional killing qualified, and maintained it being understood that this was a necessity in Serik be catching the accused …’s the crime of killing a child who has committed a crime by designing aiding …’s “help me kill by designing” the crime of penal code.nun82/1-a, 39, 31/3, 62. instead of being punished in accordance with articles 81, 39, 31/3 and 62 of the same Law in written form for the crime of “intentionally helping to kill” by making a criminal mistake. making a decision on punishment in accordance with the articles,
4-) According to the admission; As of the date of the crime, it is understood that he has completed the age of 17 and is in the age group of 15-18 … about the child who was dragged into the crime … TCK.nun31/3. determining the missing penalty by making a discount with a 1/2 ratio that cannot be applied instead of 1/3 when applying the article,
CONCLUSION : it is against the law to break it and, since it requires … … objections of counsel appellate counsel that the accused participated in this context, seen in terms of the amount of the penalty to the accused as ex officio, and subject to appeal in accordance with the provisions of the idea in the tebligname about corruption charges that have been determined considering the amount of time he’s been imprisoned, accused the counsel for the evacuation of a denial of the request, it was decided unanimously on 10.10.2017.
