Property Damage Crime And Application Of Effective Remorse
T.C. JUDICIARY
13th Criminal Chamber
Main: 2016/2788
Decision: 2016/5327
Date of Decision: 15.03.2016
CRIME OF DAMAGE TO PROPERTY – THE DAMAGE THAT OCCURRED WHEN THE CHILD DRAGGED INTO CRIME STOLE THE MOTORCYCLE BELONGING TO THE COMPLAINANT WILL NOT CONSTITUTE THE CRIME OF DAMAGE TO PROPERTY SINCE THE ACTION IS DIRECTED TOWARDS PROPERTY
SUMMARY: Although it was decided that the damage that occurred when the child dragged into crime stole the motorcycle belonging to the complainant did not constitute the crime of damage to property due to the fact that the action of the child dragged into crime was aimed at the ownership of the vehicle, and it was decided to convict him instead of his acquittal, it was decided to reject the request since the judgment did not have the ability to appeal.
(5237 S. K. art. 119, 151, 168)
Case and Decision: The judgment rendered by the local court was appealed and the file was examined and considered accordingly:
I-In the appellate examination of the verdict established against the child dragged into crime for the offense of damaging property;
Although the damage that occurred when the child dragged into the crime stole the motorcycle belonging to the complainant was decided to be convicted in writing instead of his acquittal, ignoring that the damage that occurred when the child dragged into the crime stole the motorcycle belonging to the complainant would not constitute the crime of damage to property because the action of the child dragged into the crime was directed towards the ownership of the vehicle; In the examination made by considering that it is possible to go to the way of reversal in favor of the law in this direction;
Since the judgment regarding the judicial fine of 1.000 TL, which was ultimately sentenced for the offense of damaging property, is final in accordance with Article 305/1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412 through Article 8/1 of the Law No. 5320 and does not have the ability to appeal, the appeal request of the defense counsel of the child dragged into crime … … was rejected in accordance with Article 317 of the same Law,
II-In the appellate examination of the verdict established against the child dragged into the crime for the offense of violation of residential inviolability;
Failure to make an increase from Article 119/1-c of the TPC for the child dragged into crime who violated the inviolability of the dwelling together with more than one person was not a reason for reversal since there was no appeal against him.
According to the contents of the file and the minutes of the hearing, the legally valid and favorable evidence collected and examined and discussed at the decision, the reasoning and the discretion of the judge, the appeal request of the defense counsel of the child dragged into crime … … was not deemed appropriate, and the judgment, which is in accordance with the procedure and the law except for the criticism, is approved in accordance with the notification,
III- As for the appellate examination of the verdict established against the child dragged into crime for the offense of theft;
According to the contents of the file and the minutes of the hearing, the legally valid and favorable evidence collected and examined and discussed at the decision, the reasoning and the judge’s discretion; it has been understood that there is no violation of the procedure and the law in the acceptance and characterization of the crime committed by the child dragged into the crime, and other appellate objections have not been deemed appropriate.
However;
The motorcycle subject to the crime, which was stolen from the garage of the complainant’s house, which is considered to be an annex of the house, was found damaged by the law enforcement officers on 30.12.2010 while it was in the use of the child dragged into the crime and the other child dragged into the crime, İ. A., for whom the decision of deferment of the announcement of the verdict was made, and the complainant stated in his petition dated 20.05.2010 addressed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office that the costs were paid and that they agreed between them, but in the court hearing dated 06.04.2011, he declared that the damage to his motorcycle amounting to 382 TL was not covered. 2010, the complainant stated in his petition dated 20.05.2010 addressed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office that his expenses were paid and that they had reached an agreement between them, but in the hearing of the court dated 06.04.2011, it was understood that he declared that the damage amounting to 382 TL on his motorcycle was not compensated, and it was not considered that Article 168 of the TPC should be applied against the child dragged into crime according to the result by asking the complainant whether the damage was compensated or not, and if it was compensated, at which stage it was compensated,
Since the appeal request of the defense counsel of the child dragged into the crime … … was deemed appropriate in this respect, it was unanimously decided on 15.03.2016 to overturn the verdict in accordance with the notification for the reason explained.