Criminal Chamber
Base Number: 2014/24767
Decision Number: 2015/11737
“Justice Text”
COURT: Criminal Court of First Instance
CRIME: Theft, purchase or acceptance of criminal goods
JURISDICTION: Acquittal
The decision rendered by the local court was appealed and the file was examined and the necessary was considered:
It is understood that the person who was harmed by the crime was not duly informed of the crime, that there was no notification including the annotation that he could be sentenced in his absence if he did not come despite the call, and that there was no letter stating that the notification letter reached the mentioned company, and in this case, it is understood that the person who was harmed by the crime has the right to participate; Criminal Procedure Code 237/2. In accordance with the article, in the appeal examination made by the acceptance of the request of … and the additional decision of the Court dated 17.01.2014 was lifted;
Criminal Procedure Code 148/4. In our case, one of the defendants … was describing a total of 10 different events in the law enforcement defense without his defense counsel, and in the 6th row, he referred to this incident and committed the crime to the other. While stating that they committed the crime together with the accused …, it is understood that the other defendants refused and denied the accusation at all stages, and that the accused did not confirm the law enforcement statement without his defense before the judge or the court; The court did not find that the defendant …’s defense of law enforcement without his defense was not respected, and it was APPROVED, like a communiqué, of the verdict, which was found to be in accordance with the procedure and law and based on discretion, with the refusal of the respondent’s application to appeal, according to the content of the file and the minutes of the hearing, the reasoning and discretion on which the decision was based, 24.06 It was unanimously decided on .2015.
