T.C. Supreme Court 11. Criminal Division Basis: 2002/13866, Decision : 2004/797, Date: 01.01.2004
At the end of the trial of the defendants Yüksel Kurt and Ahmet Çelikten for misconduct in security due to service:TCK. nun 508 and 522. according to Articles 9’ar months in prison and a heavy fine of 136,890,000 pounds ANKARA 10. 19.07.2002 days issued by the Criminal Court of First Instance and 2001/1386 basis, 2002/948 Decision No. of the Court of Cassation within the period of the examination of the defendant and the defendant’s attorney was requested by the case documents C.28.10.2002 notification of the Attorney General’s office asking for violation was sent to the department and discussed the need:
Since there is no conclusive evidence that the 6,500,000 lira Oton was sold to the defendant by the complainant, who owned the gallery, taking 50 US dollars in Caparo, there was no hit in the court’s acceptance and discretion that the action of the defendant, who took the auto for 15 days, constituted the crime of abuse of trust, there was no violation of the criminal qualification in the communique.
The evidence collected was examined at the site of the decision, the conviction of the accused Yüksel Kurt was accepted, determined in accordance with the formation and results of the investigation, the quality and degree of the reason for increasing the sentence was appreciated, his defense was rejected on credible grounds, since there was no hit in the provision given according to the file studied, the right of defense was restricted by not accepting an excuse, the elements of the crime were not formed, incomplete investigation was conducted, Law No. 647 4-6. approval of the provision by rejecting appeals that are intended to apply the articles and are not considered in place,
As for the appeal of accused Ahmet Celikten:
Establishing a sentence of conviction in writing, continuing a public case filed for abuse of trust, subject to a subsequent complaint, without regard to the fact that no complaint has been made against the defendant within the legal period,
It is against the law that the defendant’s appeals have been considered in place in this respect, so the provision is not required for this reason. in accordance with article 321, it was unanimously decided on 16.02.2004.
