Summary: in the video image of the victim recorded in a house with his consent; “… I regret to say this, let our prime minister hear this… if he is my prime minister, let him hear this voice… goodbye to all of you, goodbye to all of you.”according to the words in the format and the scope of the file; the video in question the victim in the image and of the speech of the victim’s private life and personal life related to the field of a nature that would violate the privacy of the defendant due to lack of violation of privacy by the disclosure of the loaded image or sound legal elements of the crime did not occur in the concrete case of the video within the knowledge of the victim’s mobile phone has been disclosed, and transferred to the defendant in the video above-quoted words, compared to the video published by victims should be expected, considering that the defendant’s act 136/1 of the Penal Code. it is necessary to recognize that it will not constitute a crime to illegally give or seize data in the article and its paragraph.
T.C. Supreme Court 12. Criminal Division E: 2018/5377 K: 2018/11368 K.T.: 28.11..2018
The sentence on the conviction of the accused for violating the privacy of private life by disclosing images or sounds was appealed by the local public prosecutor and the accused, and the case was considered necessary by examining the case:
According to the scope of the file examined, the decision of the local public prosecutor was made on the basis of incomplete examination, the rejection of other appeals related to subuta and not based on a reason of the defendant, but;
Facebook 134/2 of the accused due to the publication of the video of the victim …who works as a cemetery official, wearing a shroud on him, criticizing a terrorist organization with those who make politics based on ethnicity, making statements that he is not afraid of death and loves his homeland by the defendant … who works in the same cemetery and ended a friendship relationship due to a problem between them.Dec. in the case subject to the claim and admission that he committed the crime of violating the privacy of private life by disclosing the images or sounds in the article and paragraph;
“…I regret to say this, let our prime minister hear this… if he is my prime minister, let him hear this voice… goodbye to all of you, goodbye to all of you.”according to the words in the format and the scope of the file; the video in question the victim in the image and of the speech of the victim’s private life and personal life related to the field of a nature that would violate the privacy of the defendant due to lack of violation of privacy by the disclosure of the loaded image or sound legal elements of the crime did not occur in the concrete case of the video within the knowledge of the victim’s mobile phone has been disclosed, and transferred to the defendant in the video above-quoted words, compared to the video published by victims should be expected, considering that the defendant’s act 136/1 of the Penal Code. since it is understood that it will not constitute a crime to illegally give or seize data in the article and paragraph, the CMK should be acquitted in accordance with article 223/2-a, paragraph and paragraph for the crime of violating the privacy of private life by disclosing images or sounds thrown at the defendant, while establishing a conviction against the defendant on legal and insufficient written grounds,
2-according to acceptance and application:
53 of the TCK as a legal result of a conviction for imprisonment for a crime that he intentionally committed. for the deprivation of Rights written in paragraph (c) of Paragraph (1) of Article 53/3 of the same law. article and paragraph should also be ruled by taking the evil eye and the Constitutional Court 53 of the TCK. article 24.11.2015 on deprivation of Rights published in the Official Gazette dated 08.10.2015, 2014/140 basis, 2015/85 decision no.,
Because the appeals of the local public prosecutor and the accused are seen in place in this respect, the provision is 8 of law 5320 for these reasons. article 321 of Cmuk No. 1412, which is still being implemented in accordance with article. according to the article, the violation of the request was unanimously decided on 28.11.2018.
