66 Evaluation of Actual Aggregation and Conceptual Aggregation Rules in Terms of the Crime ... and wanted more than one outcome to occur separately. Within the framework of the provisions of actual aggregation, it should be accepted that the accused have committed both crimes separately. It is not correct in legal sense to seek whether the accused acted with the sole special intent of “disturbing peace and harmony” in the appeal examination made by the Supreme Court only for the crime of disturbing individuals’ peace and harmony. It is clearly understood from the scope of the file that his intent had been to commit more than one crime”,50 and it was stated that, even if there is only one act, if the intent of the perpetrator had been to commit both crime, conceptual aggregation rules could not be applied. In our opinion, the justification of the said decision, which states that the actual aggregation rules should be applied for the crime of insult and the crime of disturbing individuals’ peace and harmony, is not legally appropriate. Because Article 44 of Law No. 5237, which regulates the actual aggregation rules, is clear and no assessment has been made in this article in terms of the perpetrator’s intent for the crimes. In this context, when the above-mentioned conditions of conceptual aggregation are met, it is not legally possible to apply the provisions of actual aggregation on the grounds that the perpetrator’s intent is directed to all crimes. Because the conceptual aggregation is based on the singleness of the act of the perpetrator, the quantity of his/her intention is not important here. For the reasons explained, the grounds for objection of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation in the decision to which reference was made is not appropriate, and it would have been more reasonable to make an assessment according to the criterion of the sameness of the acts in the concrete case. IV. Conclusion The crime of disturbing individuals’ peace and harmony defined in Article 123 of the Turkish Criminal Code No.5237 is accepted as a “general and complementary” type of crime in doctrine and some decisions of the Court of Cassation. It is not possible to agree with this opinion. Because the aforementioned nature of the crime was not specified in the text of the article, nor was it mentioned in the justifica50 The part of the decision referred to above is the grounds of appeal of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation. The Chamber, considering the reasons for the objection in question appropriate, accepted the objection and upheld the decision of the local court.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1