48 Evaluation of Actual Aggregation and Conceptual Aggregation Rules in Terms of the Crime ... değerlendirme yapılmadan tek suçtan hüküm kurulması, kanun koyucunun fikri içtima düzenlemesini hüküm altına alırken güttüğü amaç ile de bağdaşmamaktadır. Çalışmada öncelikle kişilerin huzur ve sükununu bozma suçuna ilişkin genel bir çerçeveye yer verilerek, gerçek içtima ve fikri içtima kuralları detaylandırılmış; akabinde atıf yapılan suç bakımından Yargıtay kararları perspektifinde içtima uygulamalarına ve bu uygulamalara yönelik eleştiri ile önerilere yer verilmiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Huzur ve Sükûn, Gerçek İçtima, Fikri İçtima INTRODUCTION Conceptual aggregation which is defined as “a person who commits more than one offense through a single act shall only be sentenced for the offense with the heaviest penalty” in Article 44 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 and which is one of the exceptions to the actual aggregation that can be briefly defined as “the number of crimes should be equal to the number of acts, and the number of punishments should be equal to the number of crimes” 1 can be defined as the collection of more than one crime in a single act, or it can also be expressed as “one act, more than one crime, one punishment”. The crime of disturbing individuals’ peace and harmony, which provides protection for the spiritual aspect of personal liberty, is a type of crime in which the provisions of conceptual aggregation are often applied in practice. In this context, if the acts that constitute this crime also constitutes any other crime, the evaluation shall be made first taking into consideration the other crime, and the perpetrator shall not be convicted of the crime of disturbing individuals’ peace and harmony. Although the justification of this practice is is stated in the doctrine as the fact that the crime in question is accepted as a “general and complementary” type of crime, both this acceptance and the reasoning of the Court of Cassation’s decisions for conceptual aggregation are not consistent with the aim of the legislator in defining aggregation. As it will be explained in detail in this study, the most important condition for accepting the existence of conceptual aggregation is the “single act”, and it is not possible to apply the provisions of the conceptual aggregation if the existence of more than one act is accepted in the legal sense. In the study, it is criti1 https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1