Abuse Of Trust
T.C JUDGMENT
15th Criminal Chamber
Main: 2016/ 199
Decision: 2018 / 530
Decision Date: 18.01.2018
Case: The judgment on the conviction of the defendant … for the crime of abuse of trust due to service was appealed by the defendant’s defense counsel and the participant’s attorney, the decisions on the deferral of the announcement of the conviction of the defendant … for the crimes of forgery of official documents and fraud for the collection of legal receivables and the judgment on the acquittal of the defendant … for the crime of forgery of official documents were appealed by the participant’s attorney, the file was examined and the necessity was considered:
As it is understood that the relevant authority has decided to reject the objection regarding the decisions to defer the announcement of the verdict given against the defendant … and that no appeal has been filed against this decision, in the examination limited to the judgments established against the defendant ….;
The participant gave bonds worth 110 TL to the aforementioned person due to the computer purchased from the person named …, the participant’s father took some of the bonds when he paid the computer debt to the aforementioned person, but the defendant …, who worked at …’s workplace on the date of the incident and claimed that he had a receivable from the participant, took one of these bonds into his possession and changed the price of the bond to 6. 110 TL, then gave this promissory note to the defendant … who is a lawyer, but did not give any power of attorney to file a lawsuit, later the defendant … added … as a creditor to the promissory note subject to the crime without the knowledge and consent of the other defendant … and initiated enforcement proceedings against the participant, the participant who was subjected to enforcement proceedings and came to his office was asked to pay 3. 500 TL from the participant who was subjected to enforcement proceedings and came to his office, the participant paid this money to the defendant … even though he was accompanied by his brother …, and the said defendant paid the participant … In the concrete case where it is claimed that the defendant issued the release dated 06/01/2010 that he did not owe any debt to the participant and gave the note subject to the crime to the participant, but kept the 3500 TL money he collected in his possession; the defendant’s action, which took place in the form of showing …, who was not actually the creditor of the note subject to the crime, which was falsified and therefore forged, as the creditor, initiating enforcement proceedings against the participant, and taking the money collected from the participant into his possession, constituted the crime of forgery of official documents regulated in Article 204/1 of the Turkish Penal Code and the crime of fraud by using a public institution as a tool regulated in Article 158/1-d of the Turkish Penal Code. Article 204/1. of the TCC and 158/1-d. of the TCC, without taking into consideration that it constitutes the crimes of fraud by using the public institution as a tool, acquittal of the crime of forgery of official documents and conviction of the crime of abuse of trust due to service by making a mistake in the nature of the crime,
According to the acceptance; Although the imprisonment sentence was determined from the lower limit, without sufficient and legal justification when determining the judicial fine, the determination of excessive punishment to the defendants by determining the number of full days by moving away from the minimum limit with the same justification, is contrary to the law, the appeals of the defendant’s defense counsel and the participant’s attorney have been deemed appropriate in this respect, and for this reason, it was decided unanimously on 18.01.2018 that the judgments be DISMISSED in accordance with Article 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1412, which should be applied in accordance with Article 8/1 of the Law No. 5320.