[ad_1]
The court dismissed “Chaturon” not guilty of Section 116, as the NCPO arrested the leads for broadcast to foreign media. He disagreed with the military seizure of 57
On December 22, 2020, in the Criminal Court, the Court made an appointment to hear the verdict. The defendant in the case where prosecutor 9 (transferred from the military prosecutor’s case) is the plaintiff, suing Mr. Chaturon Chaisang, former chairman of Thailand’s Raksa Charter Party Strategy. Former leader of the Pheu Thai Party He is a defendant in a crime of rape Contrary to the Order of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) No. 37/2014, the Cybercrime Act of 2007, Section 14 (3)
The prosecutor claimed that on May 27, 2014, the defendant had made a statement to the media and objected to taking control of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) by letting people see that it is wrong to take the control of the power of the NCPO. And orders or announcements The NCPO is not legally obliged to make people
The defendant’s action was, therefore, an act to make the general public oppose the control of the NCPO, inciting the credibility of the group. NCPO to cause turbulence They were so harsh that they would cause unrest in the kingdom. Request to punish the accused under Penal Code, Section 16, 368, 91, the Computer Crimes Act of 2007, Section 14.
Outstanding news
The court ruled that Considering the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant and that There is a problem that must be diagnosed The defendant committed a crime under the 116 lawsuit or did not see that under Section 116 it indicated that the public did it to the public verbally or by any other medium That is not an act within the purpose of the Constitution Or not by expressing opinions in good faith To achieve changes in the law of the state or government. Using force to compel OR use force of violence To cause turbulence OR rebellion among the people Even to incendiary insurgency in the kingdom or for the people Violating the laws of the land
But the accused only attended a press conference with foreign media. There were approximately 80 people in the audience and the defendant made a statement in English. I do not agree with the seizure of power National Council for Peace and Order Call for the return of power to the people by holding elections as soon as possible. I wish people patience and peaceful expression. Although the prosecution witness would reason that the accused is a person who has held an important position. And the last position is Minister of Education It is someone who has people to trust AND the defendant expressed that he did not agree with NCPO at the beginning of the seizure of power There is still unrest in many areas, the actions of the accused may incite people to believe in conformity. And he came out against the coup Until there were riots in the country
But the offense under Section 116 must be clearly evident. It is a violation of the laws of the land. The defendant to break the news. Follow the law and freedom in good faith in accordance with the Constitution. And it is an official expression of speech that everyone has the right to receive. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which Thailand is a member, however, it did not appear that after the defendant made a statement, the public went out to create chaos. Not peaceful in society And in the statements of the defendants, there are no statements intended to make people move against the NCPO.
Problems that must be diagnosed by the accused as a crime of entering it into the computer system as a crime related to security. Or he didn’t see that the plaintiff didn’t have any evidence to show that the defendant was bringing the data into Facebook’s computer system. Chaturon.FanPage ”, reiterated the fact that after the defendant made a press release to the media, the defendant was arrested and was not allowed to use the telephone or any other communication device. According to witnesses, the defendant confirmed that after the military took command, the defendant was seized with a mobile phone and without communication tools, unable to communicate with his family. When the messages posted on Facebook as plaintiff the plaintiff was in custody during the detention period. Plaintiff’s evidence is not enough to hear. Therefore he dismissed the claim
Read more …
