[ad_1]
Responding in court, the defendant Nguyen Quang Vinh, former head of the Trial Department, Department of Education and Training of Hoa Binh Province, said that after receiving the conclusion of the investigation from the police office, he sent a complaint and two requests. the Supreme People’s Procuratorate for not agreeing with the results of the investigation.
“First, it is not correct to say that the defendant planned and directed this matter,” the defendant Vinh said.
The former defendant, who is the Head of the Trial Department, Department of Education and Training of Hoa Binh province, claims that many of the behaviors mentioned in the investigating authority’s conclusions are not correct.
“The defendant did not create the conditions for other defendants to commit crimes. Specifically, the defendant did not give the key to Do Manh Tuan. The defendant did not influence the inspection and the police to create conditions for other defendants to raise points”. The defendant did not give Do Manh Tuan the list, increased the score and did not accept Tuan’s list, “defendant Vinh said and stated.” If the investigating police have evidence related to this behavior, the accused will be allowed. see evidence. “
Another point, the defendant Vinh confirmed, disagreed with the police conclusion that the mines were not sincere during the investigation.
“During the investigation process, the investigative agency requested that the documents be provided in their entirety. There are no failed elements,” defendant Vinh said.
“Does that mean the accused thinks he is not guilty like the indictment processed by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate?” The trial panel asked.
Responding, the defendant Nguyen Quang Vinh stated, made it clear to the Prosecutor’s Office that for the incident to occur, the defendant who is the leader must be responsible and willing to assume responsibility for the assigned work, but not plead guilty to the charges.
According to the indictment of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, defendant Nguyen Quang Vinh and other defendants took advantage of their assigned positions and personal relationships to collude and intervene in the test in the direction of increasing the score. For 65 candidates, including 64 students took the exam in 2018 and 1 student took the exam in 2017.
The prosecution determined that, in the case, defendant Nguyen Quang Vinh was the mastermind who argued and directed defendant Do Manh Tuan and gave him the key to the examination room, creating favorable conditions for other defendants to raise it. Score 145 multiple choice test for 58 candidates.
Mr. Vinh also instructed defendant Manh Tuan to “give birth to the beat code” in writing essays in contravention of the regulations for information; provide “compass code”, information on candidates participating in the language proficiency for defendant Diep Thi Hong Lien (46 years old), former head of the examination room, to obtain 20 points on the essay test.
[ad_2]
