A person was convicted of theft, violating the immunity of a workplace, and causing damage to property. The court sentenced the person to 1 year, 2 months, and 16 days in prison (reduced from the originally determined sentence of 1 year, 3 months, and 16 days). However, the court made several procedural errors, such as not appointing a mandatory defense attorney for the accused who was under 18 at the time of the crime and not considering whether the victim had agreed to partial restitution of the stolen property. Additionally, the court did not take into account the possibility of applying the effective regret provision of the Turkish Penal Code for the crime of theft. Finally, the court did not consider the possibility of reaching a settlement with the accused under the Children's Protection Law for the crimes related to theft, violating the immunity of a workplace, and causing damage to property. The court's decision was overturned on these grounds.
Relevant laws:\n-Turkish Penal Code articles 142/1-b, 143, and 31/3 \n-Turkish Penal Code article 62/1\n-Turkish Criminal Procedure Code article 150/2 and 188/1\n-Turkish Penal Code article 168/1-4 \n-Turkish Penal Code article 253 and 254\n-Children's Protection Law article 24 \n-Children's Protection Law article 25 \n-Turkish Law No. 5560 (amending Turkish Criminal Procedure Code and Turkish Penal Code)