6. Criminal Department 2018/2751 E. , 2021/1051 K.
“text of jurisprudence”
THE COURT :The Supreme Criminal Court
CRIMES : threat with a gun for the purpose of collecting legal receivables, opposition to law No. 6136
PROVISIONS : Conviction
The provisions issued by the local court were appealed and the file was examined and considered as necessary:
I – in the examination of the provision established on the accused for the crime of opposition to the Law No. 6136:
10 of Law No. 7242, which entered into force on the same day as it was published in the Official Gazette No. 13100 on 15.04.2020 and entered into force on the same day. article 53 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 5237. in the examination, it is considered possible to observe the change made to the article at the execution stage:
According to the contents of the file and the minutes of the hearing, the available evidence collected and examined at the place of decision, the justification and the discretion of the Board of Judges, the defendant … and his defense counsel’s appeals were not seen at the place, so the rejection of the procedural and statutory provision was UPHELD as requested,
II – in the examination of the provision established for the crime of threatening with a weapon for the purpose of collecting legal receivables about the defendant:
Due to the content of the file, the legally valid and favorable evidence that was collected and examined at the place of decision and discussed, the justification and the discretion of the Board of Judges; there were no procedural and illegal violations in recognizing that the crime was committed by the defendant, other appeals were not considered on the spot.
But;
The defendant …’s asked the victim to give him $ 2,000 so that he wouldn’t see him, and the victim asked the defendant to show his police ID, and the defendant put his unlicensed gun on the table and said “here’s my ID ” and forced the victim to take the £ 450 money out of his hands and left the house, an hour later the defendant called the victim and said “the money he received is not enough” and asked him to prepare the remaining money, after the defendant came to the victim’s side to get the remaining money, the defendant was caught by the police, in the incident; the defendant was mistaken about the crime without considering that he committed the crime of looting with a gun, housing and at night, and a written decision was made on the spot and with insufficient justification,
Since the appeals of the defendant and his defense attorney and the Public Prosecutor of that place were considered on the spot for this reason, it was unanimously decided on 27/01/2021 that the verdict should be overturned in accordance with the request for the reason described.