Damage to Property (TCK Article 151/1) – Judgment of Acquittal

The court decisions published in this section were obtained in cases in which Attorney Mert Sönmez personally acted as counsel and defense counsel.

REPUBLIC OF TÜRKİYE

*** COURT

CASE NO: ***

DECISION NO: ***

REASONING

For these reasons, judgment was rendered as follows.

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT: As explained in detail and on the grounds set forth above:

A) Although a criminal action was brought on the allegation that the defendant committed damage to property, at the conclusion of the trial no convincing, definite evidence, beyond all doubt and sufficient for punishment, was obtained that the defendant committed the charged offense. Applying the principle in dubio pro reo and because the act was not established, the defendant is ACQUITTED pursuant to CMK Article 223/2-e of Law no. 5271.

–As the defendant was represented by counsel, the attorney’s fee of TRY 3,400 pursuant to the Minimum Attorney Fee Tariff in force on the date of judgment shall be paid to the defendant from the Treasury.

–The trial costs shall remain with the public.

The decision was rendered in the absence of complainant ***, defendant ***, and the defendant, and in the presence of Public Prosecutor *** representing the prosecution, consistently with the request stated in the opinion on the merits. Pursuant to CMK Articles 231/12, 267 and 268 of Law no. 5271, the complainant, defense counsel and Public Prosecutor may, within seven days from pronouncement, submit a petition to this Court, make a statement to the court clerk to be entered in the record and approved by the judge, transmit a petition through another first-instance criminal court, or, if held in prison, submit a statement or petition to the governor of the penal institution or detention facility. An appeal against the acquittal lies before the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal. Pursuant to CMK Article 231/1, the operative part was read aloud and its reasons duly explained in outline. 29/09/2020