T.C. SUPREME COURT 11. Criminal Department : Base 2002/13866, Decision : 2004/797, Date : 01.01.2004
At the end of the trials of defendants Yuksel Kurt and Ahmet Celikten for misconduct in security due to service: TCK. nos. 508 and 522. according to the articles of the 9th month of imprisonment and a heavy fine of 136,890,000 pounds according to ANKARA 10. 19.07.2002 day and 2001/1386 The basis issued by the Criminal Court of First Instance is that the defendant and the defendant’s deputy were requested to be examined by the Supreme Court within the period of Decision No. 2002/948 on the case document C.The communiqué of the Prosecutor General’s Office dated 28.10.2002 requesting to be overturned was sent to the department and examined and discussed as necessary:
since there is no conclusive evidence that the oton worth 6,500,000 pounds was sold to the defendant by the complainant who owns the gallery with a $ 50 cap, the defendant’s action, which took the car for use for 15 days, constituted a crime of abuse of trust, was not involved in the thought of violating the criminal qualification in the communiqué, as there was no failure in the court’s acceptance and discretion.
The evidence collected is examined in the decision the defendant of the crime of the rise of the Wolf is the realization of a TCL acceptance, presence, and the results of the investigation in accordance with characteristic determination, sentence enhancer was made to appreciate the nature and degree of reason, and the defense convincing reasons have been rejected for the examined file is unprecedented in accordance with the provisions of counsel because the defendant misses by not accepting the excuse given the right to defense instead of being restricted all the elements of the crime of false, incomplete there was an investigation, law 647 4-6. approval of the provision by rejecting appeals that are directed to the fact that the articles should be applied and are not considered on the spot,
As for the appeal of the defendant Ahmet Çelikten:
Establishment of a written conviction provision in continuation of a public case filed for abuse of trust, the follow-up of which is subject to a complaint, without regard to the fact that no complaint has been made about the defendant within the legal period,
Contrary to the law, since the defendant’s appeals have been considered in place as of this moment, your decision seems to be a request for this reason. the DETERIORATION of the law in accordance with Article 321 was decided unanimously on 16.02.2004.
You can read other articles and petition examples by clicking here.
