T.C. SUPREME
- Criminal Department Article No:2011/21386
Decision No :2014/14108 Decision Date: 08.07.2014
THE CRIME OF LOOTING IN THE DWELLING OR ITS ADD–ONS – YOUR ACT
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACT THAT IT CONSTITUTES A CRIME TO RESTRICT FREEDOM
AT THE DISCRETION OF THE EVIDENCE AND BY MAKING A MISTAKE IN THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROVISION – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
SUMMARY: Defendant V. …..A. Participating in more than the amount of receivables ….a legal receivable from
the accused who has not been found is S. …. TCK No. 765 of the act of forcing the participant to sign a promissory note together with?nun
looting regulated by Article 5237 is a crime of looting regulated by articles 5237 of the same Law
at the discretion of the evidence, regardless of the fact that it constitutes an offence to restrict the freedom regulated in the article
and the establishment of a verdict by making a mistake in the form of a crime required overturning it.
(765 Pp. K. m. 499) (5237 P. K. m. 109, 149)
Case: The sentence given by the Local Court is appealed, the nature of the application, the type of punishment, the duration and the crime
according to the date the file was discussed:
Decision: According to the occurrence, file content, victim and witness statements and evasive defenses of the defendants,
A. ….of the defendant V. ….. he borrowed £ 1 billion, in exchange for which he received 2.5.a billion TL promissory note issued by,
due to the fact that the defendant was a loan shark, he borrowed 2.5 billion TL with a maturity of 7 months for 1 billion, senedin
defendant V. of the participant when it is due.he paid £ 1 billion to the, which was made by the participant
when asked to write the payment on the back of the bill, the defendant S. Who was next to them ….dating of fame
A. Who joined a week later, when they said that they didn’t need to because they were and rejected his request.
while sitting at the coffee table, the defendants called to them on the pretext of talking, to walk down the road
they started suddenly in defendant V.the accused, whom they forced into the house of S.putting a pistol to his head at home in a
after ten days of participating, they forcibly signed and released one 3.5 billion TL and one blank stock
defendant S. when they meet him on the road, when he says that he has saved up money and will pay for the deed, his name is
participant A, who thinks that the last defendant said so, the deed was approved.going to the prosecutor’s office
a week later, the complainant was forced to sign the deed, which he complained about, followed by a third party
in the case of defendant V. …. in their defense at the stages, from the spouse before the date of the incident
that he left, that he had money because he sold some of his belongings in his house, that he joined A.17.5 billion TL
defendant S., that he lent money and took a 20 billion TL promissory note and that he did not admit to the crime. if
at the stages of breakthrough, the witness Jamal did not admit the crime …. defendant V.in exchange for the promissory note of A.’e 1 billion
that he knew that he had given lira, defendant S.’s brother is the witness….. and the defendant V.the elder brother of S.$2.5 and $5 billion
he knows that you want him to give and collect the bills, witness Kadri …. defendant V.in exchange for giving mold to
the subject of the crime is Defendant V., who stated that he took the 20 billion bill and gave it to the bailiff.during the search at the house of,
the participant stated in his statements that the weapon was found, the weapon was a dry pistol, dated 17.03.2004
in the upper article of law enforcement, defendant V. … 20 billion debt to a participant who is not in good financial condition
it was determined that the share that he could not give and was forcibly taken from the participant could have been filled in as 20 billion
in the face of the understanding that;
Defendant V. …..A. Participating in more than the amount of receivables ….a legal receivable from
the accused who has not been found is S. …. TCKnun 499/1 No. 765 of the act of forcing the participant to sign the promissory note together with 499/1.
looting regulated by article; looting regulated by articles 149/1-a-c-d of TCKNUN No. 5237
by his crime, he constitutes the crime of restricting freedom, regulated by Article 109/2-3-(a-b) of the same Law
judgment in writing without supervision, at the discretion of the evidence and with a fallacy in the nature of the crime
establishment,
Conclusion: Required to be overturned, defendants V. …. and s. ….. in this regard, the appeals of their defense are
since it has been seen on the spot, the provision may be OVERTURNED as requested for the reason described, No. 5320
8/1 of the Law. article 326 / last article of CMUKN No. 1412
duration of punishment-protection of the acquired rights of the accused in terms of type and amount, 08.07.2014
in its history, it was decided unanimously.
