In short
Whether a record of the deferment of the announcement of the verdict will appear, and to whom, is read according to the capacity of the person who asks and according to the record regime in Law numbered 5352. The deferment of the announcement of the verdict is not pasted onto every certificate like a line of a final conviction. It cannot be said that the record was never kept either. The criminal-record certificate the person asked for and the record the investigation or trial authority sees may not be the same printout. Lapse and the announcement of the judgment make the line different.
The capacity of the person who asks changes the printout
Law numbered 5352 builds, for this kind of decision, a record order separate from the general conviction line. The record may be asked for, in connection with an investigation or a trial, by the public prosecutor, the judge, or the court. The request is connected with an investigation or trial file in hand. The connection stands in the request writing. If there is no writing, the record is not treated as opened to everyone who asks. The line not being on the certificate in the person's hand does not give rise to the result that the record does not exist as regards that authority.
This order does not mean the record will not take a place on any printout. Which field is full is read from that certificate's own line. This text does not invent a sample printout. Being hired is not drawn from the certificate looking empty or full. The line appearing on the certificate does not mean the conviction was taken into the archive either. The archive step is the regime of an announced conviction. That regime is under a criminal-record entry. The deferred-announcement line is not put into that regime like a conviction while there is no announcement decision.
The conditions of building the decision, and the supervision period, are not resolved inside this visibility question. The conditions are in the decision of the court that built the judgment. Visibility asks to whom the record was opened after that decision was built. The two questions are not closed with the same petition.
The person's certificate is not a copy of the authority's record
A screen image, the copy submitted to the workplace, and the authority's request are not put in each other's place. The criminal-record certificate the person took in his own name writes the field the statute shows for that request. The authority may see a wider record through the connection with an investigation or a trial. When the two printouts are put side by side, the lines may be different. The difference does not of itself mean one of the documents is false. Which document was taken with which request is read from the date and the heading.
An employer, a school, or a similar third person asks for the certificate in the person's hand. This request is not the same authority as the prosecutor's or the court's request. The third person seeing the certificate is not treated as having seen the whole of the authority's record. The person cannot announce that the authority's record is absent too, because there is no line on the certificate in his hand. The authority is not obliged to open the record in its hand to the third person. Whether it opened it is read from the authority's writing.
An old-dated printout may not carry a lapse or announcement decision given later. Before a new printout is taken, the old paper is not presented as the current record. If the date of the printout is before the date of the decision, the decision in between is read separately. If there is no decision in between, the old printout is not completed as if a new line existed. If a seal, a square code, or verification information is on the certificate, it is checked from the certificate itself. If there is no information, the certificate is not assumed to have been verified.
If there is a line on the printout, the decision-type field of the line is read. If the field says "deferment of the announcement", this line is not put into the archive as an announced conviction. If the field says conviction, what is spoken of is no longer the visibility of the deferment, but the record of the announced judgment. If the field is empty, a type is not assumed. The court name and the principal number are compared with the information on the judgment. If the comparison does not hold, the printout is not announced as belonging to the decision in hand. A screen image a third person passed on is neither the person's certificate nor the authority's request. If the image does not carry a date and a heading, it is not read as a record.
How a lapse decision leaves the line
If, at the end of the supervision, it was decided that the case lapses, there is no announced conviction. The lapse decision shows the fate of the deferred-announcement record from its own text. The conviction archive is not operated by assuming the period has ended. While the lapse decision is not in the file, the record is not treated as lifted of itself. If there is a decision, whether the decision became final is read from the annotation. If there is no annotation, the lapse is not announced as closed as regards every authority.
Lapse is not an acquittal. The court has not found, with an acquittal reasoning, that the charged act was not committed. As regards the record, the result is read from how the lapse decision was entered on the register. If the entry record is not yet there, the printout may still carry the old line even if the decision was given. This delay does not have the lapse treated as absent. If the printout and the decision conflict, the conflict is written. The conflict is seen when the two papers are put side by side.
Whether the obligation was complied with is also part of the lapse question. The record relating to compliance is in the execution file or the court file. While there is no record, the obligation is not assumed to have been performed. If there is a claim that a new intentional offence was committed, whether this claim arose before or after the lapse decision is read from the dates. If there is no date, an order is not assumed.
The entering of the lapse decision on the register and the giving of the decision may not be the same moment. A certificate taken in the time between may show the line from before the lapse. This certificate does not do away with the lapse. The current record is read from the printout taken after the lapse decision was entered. If there is no note that it was entered, the old line may still be standing. If there is a note, which principal number the note belongs to is checked. The lapse of another deferment file does not close the line of the principal number in hand. If the principal numbers were mixed, each number is matched with its own decision. If there is no match, the line is not announced as lifted. The person keeps a copy of the lapse decision together with the printout. If there is no copy, the line on the printout is not counted, on its own, as proof of a case that lapsed. If there is a copy of the decision, the operative part of the copy and the decision-type field of the printout are compared. If both say lapse, the record is tied to that decision. If one says lapse and the other says announcement, there are two separate acts. Without the separation being made, the line is not announced as closed.
When the judgment is announced, the record that is spoken of changes
If the judgment is announced, what is spoken of is no longer the visibility of the deferment, but the announced conviction. The announcement decision brings into the open the judgment that was built and deferred. From this moment the line passes to the regime of the announced conviction. The archive and the erasure are read from the offence in the decision and from the regime in Law numbered 5352. It is not said that there was a conviction before the announcement decision itself is seen. If there is a decision, for which offence and which sentence the announcement was made is read from the operative part.
The remedy against the announced judgment is not the same petition as the objection against the deferment decision. The objection is directed at the decision deferring the announcement. The announced judgment is subject to its own remedy. The difference between regional appeal and cassation stands in a separate article. If the announcement decision changes on the remedy, the record line is read again according to the judgment that changed. The old line does not continue to carry the judgment that was reversed. Before the new line is entered, the old printout is not counted as current.
If there is more than one deferment decision, each stands with its own principal number. There may be a lapse in one and an announcement in the other. The fate of one is not pasted onto the other. If the number is not on the paper, the records are not treated as joined.
Decisions that visibility does not close
Judicial control is not a decision that defers the announcement of the judgment. An obligation put during the investigation or the trial does not change to whom the deferment record will appear. The definition of the measure is in the article judicial control, and how a signature obligation and a ban on leaving the country are read is in the article the obligations. That list is not copied here. When judicial control is lifted, the deferred-announcement line has not been erased. While there is no deferment decision, judicial control is not recounted as a deferment record either.
Supervised release is a form of execution of a final imprisonment sentence. It does not close the deferment screen. The condition is read from the execution legislation under supervised release. The restoration of a prohibited right is not a visibility question either. That decision does not lift the record line. The application is in the article restoration of prohibited rights. In a decision that was not announced, the package of prohibitions tied to a conviction is not treated as built. The prohibition question is read again from the announced text only after the judgment is announced.
Conclusion
Visibility is read from the capacity of the person who asks for the certificate. The person's certificate and the authority's record are not counted as the same printout. It cannot be said that the record was never kept. It cannot be said that the same line will come out on every certificate either. The lapse decision and the announcement of the judgment make the line different. The frame is on the criminal law page. The record regime is in the text of the Criminal Record Law numbered 5352, and the procedural basis of the decision is in the text of the Criminal Procedure Code numbered 5271.