In short
A charge of entering an information system is the claim that a system was entered without permission, or that the person remained in the system after the authority that was given ended. Three lines are read side by side in the file: the name of the system, the claim that the access took place, and the record of consent or authority. If one of the three is blank, you do not fill the blank one.
The name of the system
The system is the information environment whose name is written in the file. It may have been written as the institution's network, the application an account is tied to, or a server. If there is no name, the word internet does not take the place of the system line. If the complaint says "my account was entered", which account and on which date it was written is looked for. If the account name is not on the minute, do not add a name.
If the name of the environment in the complaint petition and the name in the institution's writing are different, both stand. A single name is not built by erasing one. If the institution's writing is not mentioned on the paper, do not treat the writing as existing. If it is mentioned, the writing is read beside the system line. The writing is not the access claim itself. If the name of the system is written and the access is not, do not produce the access from the name.
A claim of making the system inoperable, or of destroying or copying the data inside it, is a line separate from the entry charge. If the separate line is blank, it is not added of itself to the entry charge. The manner in which that line was realised is not looked for. What is read is whether the separate line was written. That a complaint is not a conviction is in the article on I was complained about.
Where the access claim stands
Access is the claim that an act was done in the system. An entry record, a session date or a record line the institution kept carries this claim. A screen image is not the record itself. The image can show which account appeared open at which moment. The image does not by itself close with whom the authority lies.
If from whom the access came is not written to a person in the file, do not assume the person from their being beside the device. The line of with whom the device was and the line of who made the access are read apart. It is not counted as the access having been written to you because the device is with you. If the access line carries someone else's name, that name is not put in the place of your name. If there is no record, it is not treated as an act having been done as if the record existed.
If the date line is blank, do not add a date. If the hour of the institution's record and the day of the complaint contradict each other, both stand. A single moment is not built by erasing one. If more than one session is written, each session stays on its own line. A single access name is not produced by merging the sessions. In your statement, do not add to the list a session that is not on the paper.
The limit of permission and authority
Consent is the record that the owner of the system, or the person authorised, permitted the access. Authority is the limit of the permission. An account opened for the work is written on the limit line in a claim that an area outside the work was entered. The limit is read from the duty writing, the user definition or the institution's permission document. If there is no document, do not invent a limit.
If the permission document is with you, keep the document as it is. Do not change the content of the document. If the document is not mentioned on the paper, do not put the document in the place of the charge sentence. If it is mentioned, the mention stands beside the permission line. If the area in the duty writing and the area in the complaint are different, both stay. Do not turn the difference, at this stage, into a closing in your favour or against you.
If more than one account is written, each account's permission is a separate sentence. One account's permission does not of itself cover the other account. Whichever account the paper writes is the account that is read. In your statement, do not merge the accounts. Defence counsel separates the permission line and the access line.
The date the period ended
If the permission is tied to a date, access that remains when the date passes is not counted as the continuation of the permission line. If the end date is not in the file, do not add a date. If there is a writing that takes the permission back, the date of the writing is placed beside the later access claim. If there is no writing of taking it back, do not assume the authority has ended. If the date of the writing and the date of the access are the same day, the order is read from the words before and after on the paper. If there is no word, do not build the order yourself.
Access before the period ended and access after the period ended are not the same sentence. Whichever one the paper writes is the one that is read. If both are written, the two lines stand apart. One does not complete the other. The claim of remaining is not the short name of the claim of entering. In your statement, do not merge the two claims in a single sentence.
Charges of deceit and of a document
The claim that a person was misled and that sending money or property was asked for is a charge of deceit. That charge is in the article on fraud. The claim that a system was entered can also be written without deceit being built. If the two stand side by side in the same event, each is read from its own line. Do not complete the entry charge with the elements of deceit. A charge of deceit is not turned into an entry charge while there is no system line.
A charge of forgery in a document is not told inside these three lines either. That reading is in the article on a charge of a forged document. If there is no forgery line, do not add one. If there is one, it stays on its own line. Do not merge the three names in a single answer. Separate which line you answered.
The statement comes after the three lines
Do not say "I did not enter" or "there was permission" before you see whether the name of the system, the access record and the permission document stand in the file. The limit of the statement is in the article on before giving a statement. In the investigation your status is suspect. After the indictment is accepted, the status of defendant does not erase the three lines. If the system name changed on a new paper, the changed name is not accepted in the old statement.
Your silence does not mean you accepted the access. Do not fit a session you do not remember to the hour of the complaint. The minute is read before the signature. An account that did not pass into the minute is not treated as existing with the signature. A measure decision does not mean the charge is established. The measure is in the article on judicial control. Do not add the list of obligations to the system line. If a second statement is asked for on the same day, first read the three lines on the first minute again.
Before finishing the three lines, look at a fourth thing: whether the access is written as remaining after the period ended, or as entering without permission. The two claims are not the same sentence. Whichever one the paper writes is the one that is read. If both exist, build two answers. Do not write one inside the other. The record the institution kept and the screen image are not the same line either. If an account that appears open on the image is not on the record, do not produce the record from the image.
If it is written that the device belongs to you, this is not the sentence that you made the access. The two lines stand apart. If the device is with someone else and the access is written in your name, the two lines are read again. Do not build a single person by erasing one. If the area list on the permission document and the area in the complaint are different, do not close the difference. The difference stands in the file. In your statement, do not add to the charge, as "it was required by my work", an area that is not in the duty writing. This sentence carries meaning only if it has a counterpart on the paper.
If the file number is different on the call and in the institution's writing, do not carry the session at the second number into this charge. At the time of the signature, separate which account you answered. An account given without separating writes onto the minute a session that is not on the paper. The session that is written does not fall of itself later. Defence counsel keeps the system name, the access record and the permission limit apart.
If more than one account is written, each account's permission, access and date stand apart. A single system is not built by merging the accounts. If an end of the period is written on one account and not written on the other, do not carry the end date to the second account. If the name of deceit appears on only one line, do not spread that name to all the accesses. If the screen image shows one account, do not count the image as the other account's record. In your statement, separate the accounts. Let which account you answered appear on the minute. A separation that does not appear is not treated as made with the signature. The device belonging to you does not turn the accounts you did not separate into a single access. If a witness says "that person entered", this word does not cover an account that is not written on the record. The witness sentence and the session line stay side by side. Do not add an account name that is not on the line either.
Conclusion
A charge of unauthorised access is read from the lines of the system, the access and the consent. The limit of the authority is separate from the existence of the permission. If the period has ended, remaining is not counted as the continuation of the permission. Deceit and a forged document are separate papers. The framework is on the criminal law page. Contact stands for the papers. The basis is the provisions of Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 and Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271.