THEFT SUPREME COURT DECISION

6. CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT 2021/4615 E. , 2021/20559 K.

“text of jurisprudence”

COURT : Criminal Court of First Instance
THE BOY WHO WAS DRAGGED INTO THE CRIME : …
CRIME : Theft
SENTENCE : Conviction

The decision given by the local court was appealed, but the file was examined and considered as necessary:
The decision to withdraw the disclosure of the provision was finalized on 24.07.2009, which led to the disclosure of the provision … 7. In the face of the understanding that the crime subject to the file of the Criminal Court of First Instance was committed on 10.07.2014, although the decision stated that the child who was dragged into the crime was subject to a 5-year supervision period, the Child Protection Law 23.according to the article, the supervision period for a child who has been dragged into a crime is 3 years, so the provision cannot be explained; considering the current criminal record of the child who was dragged into the crime committed on 16/07/2011 during the 3-year audit period … 2. 103/1-b, 103/2 of the TCC No. 5237 of the crime subject to the conviction of Decision No. 2011/1921, 2013/74 issued by the Juvenile Criminal Court. in the examination conducted by determining that it belongs to the crime of sexual abuse of children defined in the articles and that the conditions for disclosure of the decision that have been left undisclosed have been established,
141/1, 31/2 of the Turkish Commercial Code, which complies with the act of the child who was in the age group of 12-15 years old at the time of the crime, for the crime of theft, 141/1, 31/2. according to the upper limit of the punishment provided for in Articles 66/1-e, 66/2 and 67/4 of the TCC. given that the 6-year extraordinary case statute of limitations calculated in accordance with the articles has expired as of 24.07.2009, when the decision to withdraw the disclosure of the provision was finalized, and the child who was dragged into the crime began to commit it again on 16.07.2011, when the crime was committed during the inspection period, the crime date of 20.03.2008 has passed from the date of the crime to the date of examination,
8 of Law No. 5320, since the reason for the violation does not require a retrial, as the reason for the violation is that the appeal of the Public Prosecutor of that place has been considered in place in this regard, the provision has been OVERTURNED contrary to the grounds of the communique for the reason described, and the reason for the violation does not require a retrial. article 322 of the CMUK No. 1412, which is still in force in accordance with Article. based on the authority granted by Article 223/8 of CMK No. 5271 of the public lawsuit against a child who has been dragged into a crime. according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 29/12/2021 to DROP it due to the statute of limitations.

You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.