The Supreme Court’s Decision on the Fact that the Crime of Threat is Within the Scope of the Settlement

T.C.
SUPREME
4. Criminal Department Article No:2017/2083
Decision No :2017/25851

Date of Decision : 27.11.2017

THE CRIME OF THREATENING – THE LAW THAT ENTERED INTO FORCE AFTER THE SENTENCING
AMENDMENT – THE CRIME OF THREATENING IS COVERED BY THE SETTLEMENT –
AFTER THE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, THE DEFENDANT
THE NEED FOR A RE-EVALUATION OF HIS LEGAL STATUS

ABSTRACT: The crime of threatening with a change in the law that entered into force after the provision is also covered by the settlement
after the settlement procedures have been completed in the face of the fact that they have been taken, according to the result of the defendant’s legal
his condition needs to be reassessed.
(5237 P. K. m. 2, 7, 106) (5271 Pp. K. m. 231, 253, 254)
The decision issued by the Local Court is appealed, the duration of the application and the nature of the decision as well as the crime
according to the date the file was discussed:
Since there were no reasons for the refusal of the appeal request, the essence of the work was moved.
According to the minutes, documents and the content of the justification reflecting the trial process in which the conscientious opinion is formed
in the review conducted;

1- The fact that the statements in the defendant’s criminal record are related to the withdrawal of the disclosure of the provision,
CMK’s 231/8. according to Article 72 of the Law No. 6545. according to the article “About the person during the inspection period
due to a deliberate crime, it cannot be decided to release the disclosure of the provision again.” phrase
although it has been added, the rest of the disclosure of the provision contained in the criminal record as of the date of the crime
in the face of the fact that the decisions on his release do not create obstacles, his behavior during the trial process
having found positive, the defendant, whose discretion was reduced and whose prison sentence was postponed, was informed about “earlier
due to the fact that the disclosure of the provision was withdrawn due to another crime,” the
it is decided that there is no place for the disclosure of the provision to be left undone on non-legal grounds,

2- According to the acceptance; 34 of the Law No. 6763, which was published in the Official Gazette dated 02/12/2016 and entered into force on the same date.
article 253 of the CMK No. 5271 amended by article. according to the article and the paragraph attached to the article, reconciliation
106/1 of the TCC, the provisions of which have been revised and attributed to the accused. the threat covered by the article
it is understood that his crime was found within the scope of conciliation, but 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237
and 7. according to the conclusion of the conciliation process, taking into account the articles, the defendant’s legal
there is an obligation to re-evaluate and determine his condition in this context,
(1) Since the defendant’s appeals were therefore heard on the spot, which required a reversal, the defendant’s appeals were heard on the spot
8/1 of Law No. 5320 of the PROVISION without examining other aspects other than the reason for the violation of the numbered.
article 321 of CMUK No. 1412, which must be implemented in accordance with its article. according to the article ON CORRUPTION, the file will be sent to the court of main / sentence for continuation and conclusion of the trial starting from the pre-corruption stage, 27.11.2017
in its history, it was decided unanimously.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.