[ad_1]
The appeal cannot be heard! The appeals court remains in prison for 37 years and 4 months. The officer brought the defendant from prison to hear the verdict. The prosecutor did not go to court.
At 09:30 on November 4, 2020 in Courtroom 811, Ratchadapisek Road, the court reads the verdict of the Court of Appeals for the murder of Hi-So Cherry No. Mr. Asaya or Ko Chaipa, 35 years old, a fraction of the population of Chaiyaphum province Is a defendant guilty of killing others? Under the Penal Code, M. 288, damage to other people’s documents, M. 188, improper use of other people’s electronic cards. For the benefit of cash withdrawal or payment of 269/5, 269/7 and theft at night.
Follow the news, press follow the line fresh news
The plaintiff prosecutor filed a lawsuit on November 22, 2018, stating the circumstances of the crime, and concluded that When between July 26 and 27, 2018 at night, the defendant continuously used a 70-cm-long steel baseball bat as a weapon to hit the head, face, body and right shoulder blade. Miss Thitima or Hello, Cherry Tangviboonpanich, 39, real estate entrepreneur, girlfriend In the vital organs many times Causing Miss Thitima There was an injury to the head, face, jaw, right shoulder blade, skull fracture. Brain congestion Right rib was broken to death
After making the defendant steal the property of the deceased They are Benz cars, mobile phones, ornaments. The 1,080,000 baht valued branded bag of the deceased, including the debit card document from the deceased’s Government Savings Bank, is used to withdraw money or pay for other services. Escape to Cambodia The incident occurred in a hotel room in a neighborhood. Soi Pradit Manutham 19, Ladprao District, Bangkok by the defendant to plead guilty
In this case, the Court of First Instance ruled on November 14, 2019, that the defendant was guilty of intentionally killing other people. Life imprisonment, burglary 3 years in prison and misuse of someone else’s electronic card, 3 years in prison, the defendant pleaded guilty on evidence. But to serve as evidence of the accused as a benefit, reduce the sentence of 1 in 3, the accused can incriminate the accused for intentional homicide of 33 years 4 months, theft 2 years in prison and use of electronic cards of other people prison of 2 years Total prison sentence for the defendants 37 years and 4 months with seizure of the central AND return the property to the co-plaintiff
Subsequently, the accused filed an appeal. That day, the correctional officer took Mr. Asaya or Ko, the defendant from the special prison in Bangkok. Come hear the verdict with a lawyer. As for the prosecutor, the plaintiff did not go to court.
The Court of Appeal examined the expressions and consulted each other. There is a point to consider that the accused killed the dead causing anger as an appeal or not. He saw that although this case the plaintiff had no witnesses while the defendant committed the murder But it appears that the image from the hotel’s CCTV camera The defendant and the two dead He was together in a hotel room on the day of the accident.
In addition, there is also an investigative officer who confirms the images from said CCTV. An official inspection found a steel baseball bat on the bed in the room. In which the test tested the DNA of the defendant Attached to the handle of a steel baseball bat In addition, after the incident, the defendant seized both the car of the deceased. Before fleeing to Cambodia
On August 31, 2018, the police were able to arrest the accused. Along with the property of the deceased some items that have been stolen. The plaintiff’s evidence was consistent with the defendant’s testimony of using a baseball bat three or four times to hit the victim. What the defendant claimed to have caused anger due to an altercation and arguments about the ex-wife And was scolded by the dead until the feeling of rage I saw that the anger must be caused by violent acts of unjust causes.
But the victim has previously scolded the defendant several times in the same way. The situation is not an act of serious persecution for an unjust cause. Therefore, it is not a cause for anger
Furthermore, the defendant is guilty of theft and use of other people’s electronic cards. The defendant’s appeal did not ring. That the Court of First Instance sentenced the penalty for being adequate Condemned to a total of 37 years and 4 months in prison according to the Court of First Instance
[ad_2]
