[ad_1]
December 2, 2020 – In courtroom 904, Ratchadapisek Rd., The court reads the verdict on black case No. 838/2561 that Mr. Chatchawan Apiban Sri, former member of the National Legislative Assembly (NIA), former advisor to the construction project management committee New parliament building And former chairman of the expeditionary committee for the construction of the new parliament building The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Mr. Watchara Petchthong, a former Democratic Party MP as defendant for defamation through advertising. According to the Penal Code, article 326, 328 and the defendant was asked to pay compensation to the plaintiff in the amount of 100 million baht with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum, in the case of Mr. Watchara, the news on the proposal to use the budget to create a new parliament alluding to Mr Watchara.
The plaintiff’s complaint set out the circumstances and concluded that on March 7, 2018, the defendant had participated in the program. “Unity of the People” on Siam Thai TV Station Say Plaintiff is big leg in NIA, rampant at accelerator committee meeting will take 5 billion baht by pushing IT budget from 3 billion baht to 8 1 billion baht, about to defraud the entire country. .2561, the defendant gave a press conference at the Democratic Party office, the plaintiff was said to have power over the president. NIA makes people understand that Plaintiff did not respect supervisor. And confirmed that the plaintiff was the one who ordered an aneurysm to increase the false statement.
Then, on March 12, 2018, the defendant gave an interview on the show. “Newsletter” said something like the plaintiff pushed the budget aneurysm. And intimidate 18 parliamentary officials into establishing an investigative committee and on March 13, 2018, the defendant said on the show. “News” on the New 18 channel, it seems that the plaintiff is the true charisma of the NIA. Cause harm to the plaintiff
Mr. Watchara, the defendant refused and received bail. Today, Mr. Watchara came to court. Interview before entering the room to consider that On this day, I had no worries. Because he has fulfilled his duties as ex-deputies under the constitutional law to annul and defend public taxes in the ICT budget. That has molded an 8 billion baht budget from 6 billion baht, for which he has submitted a letter of objection to the Prime Minister. Until Cabinet agrees and does not approve said budget. When defamation is filed, it is common practice. Who brought in an expert witness to rebut each issue of the plaintiff’s allegation So today, regardless of how the court decides I was ready to embrace
Subsequently, the court considered the evidence that the plaintiff, the defendant testifies. Whether the defendant is suing or not The plaintiff and witnesses testified similarly about being insulted. The name of the plaintiff is clearly identified. Said to be a big leg Which, according to the dictionary, means gangster or influencer Alleged the plaintiff was corrupt Intimidating a minority official AND ordered the NIA president to discredit the plaintiff As for the defendant to serve as defense evidence of the country in the face of budget corruption You can stop aneurysm declarations Criticize with honesty and fairness. Although the budget is uncertain The defendant wanted to veto.
The court determined that the defendant’s claim about the plaintiff was not a fair criticism. Therefore, he saw that the defendant committed a crime as a result of the lawsuit. The plaintiff alleges that 1 million baht (reduced from 100 million baht), the court found that the defendant violated the plaintiff. But the plaintiff asked for too much, making 500,000 baht at 7.5 percent annual interest.
Judge that the defendants have committed various crimes. To punish each karma as a crime, one year in prison, a fine of 120,000 baht, a total of 4 charges, 4 years in prison, a fine of 480,000 baht. 32 months in prison, 320,000 baht fine, 2 years in prison, 500,000 baht compensation, 7.5% interest per year, announce the verdict in the Thairath Daily News for 3 days and use the fees on behalf of the plaintiff.
After hearing the verdict, Mr. Watchara revealed that he accepted the judgment of the Court of First Instance. But the defendant filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal. Because it is for the public good that the defendant will petition the Superior Court for clemency anyway.
[ad_2]
