T.C.
SUPREME
18.CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
E.2015/8443
K.2015/9550
T.28.10.2015
CASE : The verdict given by the Local Court was appealed, but the duration of the application and the nature of the decision and the file were discussed according to the date of the crime:
DECISION : Since there were no reasons for rejecting the appeal request, the merits of the work were moved.
In the examination conducted according to the minutes, documents and justification content reflecting the trial process in which conscientious opinion was formed, other reasons were not found to be in place.
But :
1- The legal value protected by the punishment of an insulting act is the honor, dignity and dignity of persons, and in order for this crime to occur, the behavior must take place in order to humiliate the person. In some cases, whether a movement is arbitration or not is relative and may vary depending on the time, place and situation. Any kind of severe criticism or offensive words directed at people should not be considered in the context of a crime of insult, the words should clearly constitute a concrete verb or fact attribution or verb of abuse that can offend honor, honor and dignity.
“We will not give a count, we do not stand up, we respect anyone here, call your manager, prosecutor, we don’t stand up no matter who comes, we don’t give a count, come and get it if you can get it” and rude words of address are considered to be offensive to the honor, honor and dignity of the victims due to the fact that the elements of the offense of defamation are not formed , making a decision on conviction,
2-According to the acceptance, when establishing a conviction for insulting a public official because of his position, Article 125/1 of the TCC. failure to observe that Article 125/3-a of the TCC should be applied directly without applying the article,
CONCLUSION : Contrary to the law, and defendant A.. K..since the reasons for the appeal of the and the opinion in the communique are considered in place, the DECISION is CMUK’s 325. the defendant S., who did not come to the appellate review due to the connection in accordance with the authority granted by the article.. K..it was unanimously decided on 28/10/2015 that the file should be sent to the court of main/sentence to be continued and concluded starting from the pre-trial stage.
