62 Evaluation of Actual Aggregation and Conceptual Aggregation Rules in Terms of the Crime ... that all acts constitute a single act in a legal sense. Because, the other three messages that do not contain insulting expressions are not evaluated. As in the second example given, if there is a partial sameness in terms of acts, applying the provisions of the conceptual aggregation by accepting the crime of disturbing individuals’ peace and harmony as a “general and complementary” crime type and making a decision for only the other relevant crime committed will not contribute to criminal justice. Because, on the basis of the principle of conceptual aggregation, the singleness of the perpetrator’s act is taken into account, and in this context, the perpetrator is prevented from being punished for the same act more than once. However, in the case of partial sameness, it is not possible to cause a situation in which the perpetrator is not punished for the acts that are not taken into account on the grounds of “conceptual aggregation” in terms of the crimes that the perpetrator has committed with separate actions. 45 In this context, in the second possibility mentioned above, in our opinion, if all the conditions of the crime are present, the actual aggregation provisions should be applied and a conviction should be established for both the crime of insult and crime of disturbing individuals’ peace and harmony. We have mentioned above that, in practice, the sameness of the act (movement) is not evaluated separately in each concrete case, and in cases where the provisions of Article 123 of the TCC come to the fore, the conviction provisions for the other crime committed are automatically applied (by making reference to general and complementary crime type). In this context, we believe that we should mention two separate decisions of the Court of Cassation, which also contains opinions supporting this understanding, and our criticisms about it. In this context, first of all, the Court of Cassation decision will be referred to in which aggregation provisions were applied for the crime of “causing noise”, which is thought to have similar characteristics with the crime of disturbing individuals’ peace and harmony. The relevant part of this decision is as quoted below; 46 bly of Criminal Chamber of Court of Cassation, 2014/12-516, 2018/47, 2/20/2018, www.kazanci.com) 45 In our opinion, applying conceptual aggregation rules and non-applying separate punishment for the crime of disturbing individuals’ peace and harmony in cases where there is partial sameness will lead to the existence of previous or subsequent actions that are not punished. 46 18th Criminal Chamber of Court of Cassation, 2016/15421, 2017/2171, 2/27/2017,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1