Is The Defendant Who Stole Thirty-Six TL Seventy-Five Kurus Worth Of Cheddar Cheese And Chocolate Punished
T.C. SUPREME
2.Criminal Department
Basis: 2015/1595
Verdict: 2018/164
Decision Date: 23.01.2018
CRIME OF THEFT – STEALING CHEDDAR CHEESE AND CHOCOLATE WORTH THIRTY-SIX TL SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS – LOW VALUE OF THE GOODS CONSTITUTING THE SUBJECT OF THEFT – THE NEED TO MAKE A DISCOUNT AT A RATE TO BE DETERMINED FROM THE PENALTY IMPOSED
SUMMARY: The defendant, according to the assessment report as a customer entered the market value worth $ 36.75 in the event that you attempted to steal cheese and chocolate, fault processing methods and properties to give punishment as may be abandoned, while the value of the goods that constitute the subject of theft due to the scarcity of, and must be made at a discount rate to be determined from a given sentence.
(5237 Pp. K. m. 3, 61, 141, 145) (5271 P. K. m. 231) (YCGK. 15.12.2009 t. 2009/6-242 E. 2009/291 K.)
The file was examined and considered as necessary;
According to the contents of the file, other appeals were not considered on the spot.But;
1- 145 of the TCK No. 5237. article 522/1 of the Law No. 765 on the concept of ”low value of goods”. in the article the criteria and slight very slight similarity, except that it gives a discount from the punishment of both substances in the absence of a “lack of value” Law No. 5237-specific, separate, and it is a new concept, the nature of the incident, the defendant’s personality and spent a showing of intent to evaluate and legal and sufficient reasons, by considering a concrete case that can be applied by; in the incident where the accused attempted to steal 36.75 TL worth of cheddar cheese and chocolate from the grocery store that he entered as a customer, according to the value determination report; 145 of the TCK numbered 5237. failure to observe that it is necessary to discuss whether the article should be applied or not,
2- While it was decided that there was no room to delay the announcement of the verdict about the accused, Article 231 of the CMK. the objective (lens) is evaluated and the reasons for this and subjective conditions that should be shown to the defendant of the judgment in the criminal records back to back to release the announcement of their decision to release the announcement of the award does not constitute an obstacle to the implementation of the provisions of the same law 231/6-C are shown, and the announcement of the award to be turned back to the objective (lens) is one of the conditions with the crime victim or the public of the damage the exactly return, by completely eliminating the damage that will prevail in making a crime before or compensation, to be determined by a simple study of material damage is convincing, concrete remaining in the attempted stage of the theft in a case of a simple research can identify with the nature of the crime and the judge due to the absence of any material harm, to be turned back to the announcement of the award sought to be decided CMK 231. article 6. considering that the objective (objective) conditions shown in paragraphs a and c of paragraph A have been realized; 231 of the CMK on the defendant. article 6. Paragraph (B) in clause stated, “Considering the attitudes and behaviors of the trial with the defendant’s personality traits to reach conclusions about whether he would commit a crime again” nominative (subjective) evaluated according to the results of the quantification of the condition, while defining the legal status of the defendant “the defendant was previously a record of the announcement of the award to be turned back because it is related to” format, and not enough about the legal justification accused turned back to the announcement of the award giving to decide if it’s the place to be,
It was decided unanimously on the day of 23.01.2018 that the verdict should be overturned as a request for these reasons, since the appeals of the accused were considered on the spot in this respect.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.