T.R. Supreme Court
2nd Criminal Chamber
Base: 2015/1595
Decision: 2018/164
Decision Date: 23.01.2018
THE CRIME OF THEFT – STEALING KASHAR CHEESE AND CHOCOLATE WORTH THIRTY-SIX TL AND SEVENTY-FIVE PENSIONS – THE VALUE OF THE GOODS CONSIDERED OF THEFT IS LOW – THE REQUIREMENT OF A DISCOUNT FROM THE PUNISHMENT AT A DETERMINED RATE
SUMMARY: In the incident where the defendant attempted to steal kashar cheese and chocolate worth 36.75 TL from the market where he entered as a customer, according to the valuation report, although it cannot be avoided due to the way the crime was committed and its characteristics, the penalty should be reduced at a determined rate due to the low value of the goods that constitute the subject of the theft.
(5237 Law No. 3, 61, 141, 145) (5271 Law No. 231) (YCGK. 15.12.2009 T. 2009/6-242 E. 2009/291 K.)
The file was examined and necessary consideration was given;
According to the content of the file, other appeal objections were not deemed appropriate. However;
1- In Article 145 of Turkish Penal Code No. 5237, the concept of “low value of the goods” is defined in Article 522/1 of Law No. 765. In the concrete case, considering that both articles have no similarity with the light and very light criteria in the article, except that they provide the opportunity to reduce the sentence, that “low value” is a separate and new concept specific to Law No. 5237, and that it can be applied by evaluating the nature of the incident, the personality of the defendant and the specific intent, and showing legal and sufficient justifications; In the incident where the defendant attempted to steal kashar cheese and chocolate worth 36.75 TL, according to the valuation report, from the market he entered as a customer; Failure to take into account the need to discuss whether Article 145 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 will be applied or not,
2- When deciding that there is no need to postpone the announcement of the verdict about the defendant, the objective and subjective conditions listed in Article 231 of the CMK should be evaluated and the relevant reasons should be given, the decisions to postpone the announcement of the verdict in the criminal record of the defendant do not constitute an obstacle to the implementation of the provisions of the postponement of the announcement of the verdict, and the objective (objective) conditions regarding the postponement of the announcement of the verdict shown in Article 231/6-c of the same Law. Another of the conditions, which is that the damage to be taken as basis in completely eliminating the damage suffered by the victim or the public due to the commission of the crime, by returning it to the same state as it was before the crime or by compensation, is the material damage that can be determined by a simple convincing investigation, and in the concrete case, it is stated in paragraphs a and c of the 6th paragraph of Article 231 of the CMK, which are sought to decide on the postponement of the announcement of the verdict, since there is no material damage arising from the crime of theft that remains at the stage of attempt and that the judge can detect with a simple investigation. Considering that objective conditions are met; While the legal status of the defendant should be determined by evaluating whether the subjective condition of “convincing that the defendant will not commit a crime again, taking into account the personality characteristics of the defendant and his attitude and behavior at the hearing”, specified in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 6 of Article 231 of the CMK, has been met, the legal status of the defendant should be determined based on the result. It is decided that there is no need for deferment,
Since it required reversal and the defendant’s appeal objections were deemed appropriate, it was unanimously decided on 23.01.2018 to REVERSE the verdict as a request for these reasons.