T.C.
SUPREME
14.CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
E.2013/5363
K.2015/2314
T.2.3.2015
INSULT ( Since It was Committed in Response to a Wrongful Act, It Should Be Decided That There is No Room for Punishment )
TORT ( Since the Insult Was Committed in Response to a Tort, It Will Be Decided That There is No Room for Punishment)
SIMPLE SEXUAL ASSAULT (There Is Animosity Between the Accused Who Participated and the One Who Was Declared – There is No Conclusive and Convincing Evidence / The Decriminalization of the Accused Will Be Ruled Out)
ANIMOSITY BETWEEN THE PARTICIPATING DEFENDANTS (Simple Sexual Assault / There Is Animosity Between the Participating Defendant And the Participating Defendant Whose Statement Has Been Received – Dec Decriminalization Will Be Decided About the Defendant)
5237/m.102,125,129
ABSTRACT: Since the insult was committed in response to a wrongful act, it should be decided that there is no place for direct punishment by betting, while the conviction provision is established first and then the application of the said article is against the law.
In the case of a simple crime of sexual assault; decriminalization of the accused who participated should be decided in the face of the absence of any definite, concrete and convincing evidence that the crime occurred, far from any doubt, except for the statements of the aforementioned person who had a animosity between the accused and the participating defendant.
CASE: The provisions issued by the local court were appealed and the file was examined and considered as necessary:
VERDICT : The defendant involved is S. about the intentional infliction of injury and threats, the defendant A. and I. in the examination of the provisions established for the crimes of intentional injury in their rights:
Article 26 of the Law No. 6217, which entered into force on 14.4.2011. provisional article 2, which was added to the Law No. 5320. fines of up to TL 3,000 (including) imposed as a result, except for those transferred from imprisonment by the article, are final and are No. 1412 as of the amount of penalties imposed on the defendants participating in the C.M.U.K.nin305/1. since it is not possible to appeal the provisions that are final and mentioned in accordance with article A, the defendant A.Law No. 5320 of the Russian Federation on the appeal of these provisions 8/1. article 1412 C.M.U.K.nin317. refusal in accordance with the article,
The defendant involved is S. in the examination of the provision established on the offense of defamation:
Refusal of other appeals that are not considered on the spot in accordance with the content of the file reviewed, in accordance with the opinion and discretion of the court formed in accordance with the results of the investigation and prosecution, the evidence collected and shown at the place of decision, the content of the file reviewed,
But;
129/1 of Law No. 5237. according to the article, since the insult was committed in response to a wrongful act, it should be decided that there is no place for direct punishment with a bet, while the conviction provision should be established first and then the application of the said article,
The defendant involved is A. as for the appellate review of the verdict established on the simple charge of sexual assault about:
According to the occurrence and scope of the entire file, A. and S., who has enmity between them and Dec.in the face of the absence of any definite, concrete and convincing evidence, far from any doubt that the crime occurred, except for the statements of A.decision on the conviction of the person in writing instead of acquittal for a common crime,
CONCLUSION : Contrary to the law, it involved the Public Prosecutor and the defendant A.since the appeals of the are considered to be in place as of this moment, the provisions of Law 8/1 of No. 5320. article 1412 C.M.U.K.nin321. according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 02.03.2015 to CANCEL it and to return it if the appeal fee was requested.
