[ad_1]
The court dismissed the Dusit Tigers along with the BB parties, guarding the game dice.
December 16, 2020 in Criminal Court, Ratchadaphisek Road The court reads the verdict in the case that the prosecutor As the plaintiff filed suit Mr. Sumrit Rim Thuan or Dusit Tiger,Mr. Watchara Makchongdee, Mr. Anon Sethaporn and Mr. Sopee in the crime of robbery
The accusation specifies the circumstances, concluding that on August 24 at 62 at the night before noon, the 4 defendants jointly looted the amount of cash. The 15,500 Manit Baht were used fraudulently to attack the victims, and the four defendants shared artifacts, firearms, 2 air pistols, threatening to suddenly use force to attack the victims in order to facilitate the stealing or taking property. Go to surrender property to take property AND to escape arrest AND to make the injured person fear or shock by threatening them
Request punishment under Penal Code section 33,84,340,392 Losing 2 middle BB pistols, to the four defendants to reimburse 3,500 baht as part of the request for the injured person who has not yet returned to the victim. The incident occurred in Anusawari district. Bang Khen, Bangkok
The four defendants refused and traveled today to hear the verdict. The court examines the plaintiff’s evidence and the four defendants, the preliminary fact, it can be concluded that on August 23, 2019, Mr. Manit used to gather the victims to persuade the first defendant to join the Hi Lo game, take ownership together. 1 traveling to the scene of the accident with Defendant 2 carrying a BB gun along with Defendant 3-4 in the building at the scene
Later, on August 24, 62, at approximately 3:00 a.m., the first defendant took the money from the gambling circle at 12,000 baht shouting that there was a cheat in the game. Then the victim negotiated with the 1st defendant, where the 1st defendant told the victim that he had lost 15,500 baht from gambling, the victim gave another 3,500 baht to the 1st defendant to complete the amount as the 1st defendant lost the money from the game.
There is a problem in the case, the first must be diagnosed if the four defendants committed a joint robbery or not. The plaintiff had Ms Panyaporn Intarachan injured, Police Lieutenant Colonel Pornchai Wongprasert and Lieutenant Colonel Sarawut Butdee, the investigating officer. He testified that from the investigation of the victim and Ms. Panyaporn said that on the day of the incident, it took 2-4 for the first defendant to join the game.
Follow the news, press follow the line fresh news
WithMiss panyaporn He is a merchant after playing for a while, accused the first defendant The victim and Miss Panyaporn, cheating playing dice AND defendant No. 1-2 Pull out a gun and threaten the victim and Miss Panyaporn within the circle of game, with 3-4 defendants in control
Then the 1st defendant stood on the table and took the money on the table and the 4th defendant helped collect the money on the table for a total of 12,000 baht. Later, the victim can negotiate with the 1st defendant. The 4 defendants met with the investigating officer. In the interrogation class, the four defendants confessed. He saw that even Lieutenant Colonel Pornchai and Lieutenant Colonel Sarawut testified with the document memorandum, the victim’s testimony. Record the testimony of Miss Panaporn and the testimony of the 4 defendants to support
But when considering the victim and Miss Panyaporn replied that she did not see the incident, while defendants 1-2, threw a BB gun, threatened and took the 12,000 baht money from the gambling circle. But he heard the noise and went out to look and found the first defendant arguing with another person, therefore he entered and asked, what was the difference in essence, both for the victims.
And Miss Panyaporn did not confirm the message according to the memo. Prepared by Investigative Officer AND based on Defendant 1-4 Vital Record Image that Victim and Miss Panaporn wrote the message themselves, there was only one message that Defendant 1-4 are just villains, not written to confirm no other fact.
Regarding the testimony of the 4 accused who confessed The four defendants also argued over the authenticity of the documents. He claims that the four defendants did not read the message before signing because the police officers asked to sign first. And the policeman will not prosecute the four defendants, so the statements in the memorandum of said testimony are not known to be inaccurate and uncontroversial.
In addition, from the way the plaintiff testifies, the facts that The reason why the first defendant was angry and took the money from the gambling circle in the amount of 12,000 baht can be known because the first defendant understood that he had been cheated on the game and then the victim negotiated and gave the first defendant another 3,500 baht to complete as specified. 1st defendant lost play money
Mixed in with the testimony of the first defendant, who testified that while the first defendant was playing craps, there was a known person in the casino who said there was a gambling trap, the first defendant noticed the dice and discovered that the dice were spinning. abnormal way, the first defendant Use both hands to sweep the money on the table, and when a security guard approaches the first defendant, jump onto the gaming table and pull out a BB gun. And say you cheated on me
Later, the victim entered, the first defendant kept the gun at his waist as before. And tell the victim that the victim is cheating. The victim has tried to negotiate with the security guard. The victim took the money from the gambling ring another 3,500 baht and gave it to the defendant. 1 indicates that cheating is likely in the game and the first defendant discovered that the dealer cheated, causing the first defendant to lose the game, causing the victim to return the money from the betting circle to the first defendant others 3500 baht
As follows, the first defendant withdrew the 12,000 baht amount from the potion in the playing circle, so it could be heard that because the first defendant found out that the dealer cheated, causing the first defendant to lost the bet, if the dealer does not cheat, the first defendant cannot You must lose the game money because the first defendant got the money back, so did the first defendant who believed they had the right to recover the money lost in the I play because the dealer cheated. So much money the first defendant took was money in the betting circle in front only
The first defendant does not appear to have received any other money. Regarding the amount of 3,500 baht, the victim is the first defendant that the first defendant cannot be considered to have dishonest intentions, which constitutes a crime of theft. In the case of the problem, the next decision would be whether the four defendants committed crimes together, causing others to fear or panic by threatening or not.
He saw the plaintiff claim that the four defendants used artificial weapons, 2 BB guns, which made the victims feel fear or panic when threatening But according to the illustration in the investigation report This is the scene of the incident with only images of the 1-2 defendants holding guns and cash without photos, while the 1-2 defendants use a compressed air pistol to intimidate the victim.
In conjunction with the fact that the victim confirms that the victim is not present. While the first defendant used a compressed air pistol, threatened, he took 12,000 baht, mixed with news images according to documentary evidence that the victim interviewed after the incident 9 days that he was not in the incident.
He came to know the story after the news broke during the incident, and the first defendant said that he did not dare to use a weapon to threaten the victim. Because they respect the victim as an older person, which corresponds to what the victim stated that he knew the defendant that 1 has finished 10 years and the defendant 1 respect the victims
The evidence for the plaintiff still has reasonable doubts that he cannot firmly hear that the victim was in the incident while the first defendant used a BB gun, threatening to take the money from the gambling circle. The fact that appears in the consideration is significantly different from the facts mentioned in the complaint. The court must dismiss the case in accordance with paragraph two of article 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
For air pistols, artifacts, 2 middle firearms Although the court ruled that the four defendants did not commit any crime. But when it appears in the photo of the document that defendant 1-2 pulls out the air pistol, holding it in a manner that causes fear or shock, which is the property used in the crime, it is left to the discretion of the court.He can order confiscation due to confiscation provision if In the case of Section 32 or Section 33 of the Penal Code, it is important to confiscate the property.
Regarding the request of the 4 defendants for the refund of the amount of 3,500 baht that is part of the injured person to the injured person. When the facts were known that the victim gave the money to the first defendant voluntarily It is not the property that was lost due to the commission of the crime, this part of the request to dismiss the dismissal of the BB gun. 2 middle cylinders
[ad_2]
