T.R. SUPREME COURT
- Criminal Chamber
Basis: 2014/29494
Decision: 2016/9095
Decision Date: 30.06.2016
OBJECTIVE CRIME NUMBER 4733 – THE ACTION BY TWO PERSONS IS CONSIDERED TO BE PERFORMED BY TWO PERSONS, AND THE PUNITIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONS SHOULD BE INCREASED.
SUMMARY: In the judgment established on the accused who was charged with the crime of opposition, no. 4733, it was deemed sufficient for the act to be committed by two persons in terms of the formation of the crime of mass smuggling. It was decided to overturn the judgment.
(5237 No. K. Art. 50) (4926 No. K. Art. 5) (YCGK T. 31.01.2012 T. 2011/7-465 E. 2012/11 K.)
Litigation and Decision: The judgment rendered by the local court is appealed; After the file was read according to the nature of the application, the type of punishment, its duration and the date of the crime, the necessity was discussed and considered on behalf of the Turkish Nation;
Due to the fact that the reasoned decision notification is made to the principal without considering that the notification of the reasoned decision should be made to the attorney in the works followed by the attorney, in the examination made by accepting that the appeal of the defendant’s counsel is within time upon learning;
As stated in the decision of the 1st Supreme Court Penal General Assembly dated 31/01/2012, numbered 2011/7-465 and Decision 2012/11, the crime of collective smuggling regulated in Article 5/final of Law No. 4926, which came into force after the crime date, In the face of the fact that it was stated that it could be committed by the person, the actions of the defendants were evaluated as collective smuggling due to the act they committed together, and accordingly, the defendants were offered a prepayment over 4.5 times the customs clearance value calculated from the CIF value determined by the expert, and they did not make the payment without considering the determination and discretion of their legal status according to the result. to be sentenced in writing with a bet,
In the determination of the law in favor of the Law No. 2.4926 and Law No. 5607, it was stated that the short-term prison sentence imposed on the defendants would be converted into a judicial fine pursuant to Article 50 of the TCK No. 5237, if the Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607 was applied, and the result was that the sentence was more in favor of the defendants. giving a verdict of conviction in accordance with the Law No. 4926, which is against
According to the acceptance;
5/3 of the Anti-Smuggling Law No. 4926. In the article, it was deemed sufficient for the act to be committed by two persons in terms of the formation of the crime of mass smuggling, and it was not observed that the sentences of the accused should be increased by half in accordance with the aforementioned law,
Conclusion: Since the appeal objections of the defendant …’s defense counsel and the participating … Administration’s attorney, which are unlawful, are deemed appropriate for this reason, Article 8/1 of the Law No. 5320. It was unanimously decided on 30.06.2016 that the CMUK numbered 1412, which is in force pursuant to Article 321, be overturned.
T.R. SUPREME COURT
- Criminal Chamber
Basis: 2014/29494
Decision: 2016/9095
Decision Date: 30.06.2016
OBJECTIVE CRIME NUMBER 4733 – THE ACTION BY TWO PERSONS IS CONSIDERED TO BE PERFORMED BY TWO PERSONS, AND THE PUNITIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONS SHOULD BE INCREASED.
SUMMARY: In the judgment established on the accused who was charged with the crime of opposition, no. 4733, it was deemed sufficient for the act to be committed by two persons in terms of the formation of the crime of mass smuggling. It was decided to overturn the judgment.
(5237 No. K. Art. 50) (4926 No. K. Art. 5) (YCGK T. 31.01.2012 T. 2011/7-465 E. 2012/11 K.)
Litigation and Decision: The judgment rendered by the local court is appealed; After the file was read according to the nature of the application, the type of punishment, its duration and the date of the crime, the necessity was discussed and considered on behalf of the Turkish Nation;
Due to the fact that the reasoned decision notification is made to the principal without considering that the notification of the reasoned decision should be made to the attorney in the works followed by the attorney, in the examination made by accepting that the appeal of the defendant’s counsel is within time upon learning;
As stated in the decision of the 1st Supreme Court Penal General Assembly dated 31/01/2012, numbered 2011/7-465 and Decision 2012/11, the crime of collective smuggling regulated in Article 5/final of Law No. 4926, which came into force after the crime date, In the face of the fact that it was stated that it could be committed by the person, the actions of the defendants were evaluated as collective smuggling due to the act they committed together, and accordingly, the defendants were offered a prepayment over 4.5 times the customs clearance value calculated from the CIF value determined by the expert, and they did not make the payment without considering the determination and discretion of their legal status according to the result. to be sentenced in writing with a bet,
In the determination of the law in favor of the Law No. 2.4926 and Law No. 5607, it was stated that the short-term prison sentence imposed on the defendants would be converted into a judicial fine pursuant to Article 50 of the TCK No. 5237, if the Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607 was applied, and the result was that the sentence was more in favor of the defendants. giving a verdict of conviction in accordance with the Law No. 4926, which is against
According to the acceptance;
5/3 of the Anti-Smuggling Law No. 4926. In the article, it was deemed sufficient for the act to be committed by two persons in terms of the formation of the crime of mass smuggling, and it was not observed that the sentences of the accused should be increased by half in accordance with the aforementioned law,
Conclusion: Since the appeal objections of the defendant …’s defense counsel and the participating … Administration’s attorney, which are unlawful, are deemed appropriate for this reason, Article 8/1 of the Law No. 5320. It was unanimously decided on 30.06.2016 that the CMUK numbered 1412, which is in force pursuant to Article 321, be overturned.v
