Home News The Court of Appeal upheld the verdict to dismiss the charges against Thaugsuban’s invasion of Khao Phaeng forest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the verdict to dismiss the charges against Thaugsuban’s invasion of Khao Phaeng forest.

by news dir

The Court of Appeal read the verdict to dismiss the criminal case against Luksuthep Thaugsuban against the raiders of Khao Phaeng in Surat. pointed out that there is no reason for legal possession feel normal

23 November 2021 – at the Criminal Court, Ratchadaphisek Road The court read the verdict of the Court of Appeal. Khao Phaeng Forest Invasion Case Surat Thani Province, Black Number, District 3534/2556, where the Public Prosecutor’s Special Litigation 4 is the plaintiff against Mr. Pornchai Fathaweeporn, 58 years old, manager of Ruangpanya Construction Partnership, Mr. Samart or Gokek Ruangsri, age 66 years, Partner, Ruangpanya Construction Ltd., Mr. Tan Thaugsuban, 42 years old, Land Broker Son of Mr. Suthep Thaugsuban, former PDRC leader and Mr. Banjerd Lao Piyasakul, 63, a former personal secretary to Mr Suthep, is the 1-4 defendant for jointly building, clearing or burning forests or committing any act that destroys the forest. or occupying the forest for oneself and others without permission and bases to occupy, possess, build or burn forests on state lands without possessing rights or without permission from the authorities. According to the Land Code, Sections 9, 108 bis and the Forest Act (No. 5), B.E. 2518, Section 22

Case between 27 September 2000 and 5 October 2001 consecutively, the 1-2 defendants jointly invaded, occupied, destroyed, cleared the forest, Khao Phaeng, Koh Samui District, Surat Thani Province, area 31 rai 2 ngan 97 The 3rd and 4th defendants jointly invaded, occupied, destroyed, cleared the Khao Phaeng forest, Koh Samui district, Surat Thani province, with an area of ​​14 rai, with the construction of a reservoir without permission.

See also  Bangkok ranked No. 1 with COVID infection today, with 347 highs.

In this case, the Court of First Instance considered that The defendants actually committed a crime. Defendants 1-2 were sentenced to 5 years each, while the 3rd and 4th defendants were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment without parole. Because the case is serious The defendants appealed Subsequently, the Court of Appeal considered Judgment for dismissal of all defendants Plaintiff’s prosecutor filed a petition to punish the defendants

Later, on March 18, 2021, the Supreme Court, Environmental Case Division After analyzing it, it was found that the Court of Appeal had not completely ruled on all issues. Therefore, an order to reverse the case was filed to the Court of Appeal. reconsideration

The Court of Appeal reviewed the consultation meeting and found that the facts, Defendant No. 1-2 sold the land to Defendant 3 without occupying it. The Court of First Instance sentenced the defendant The Court of Appeal disagreed. Some of the defendants’ appeals were heard. The verdict dismissed the four defendants. in the case of criminal cases As for the civil case, the defendants 3, 4, workers, contractors, representatives and attendants moved out of the Khao Phaeng forest in the north. And the east of Deed No. 28109, Mae Nam Subdistrict, Koh Samui District, along the waterway, along the reservoir ridge, where the 3rd and 4th defendants have no legal grounds for holding. Because the law has the intent to protect it for the benefit of the public.

after Mr. In short, I felt fine.

Mr Sawat Charoenphon, a lawyer, said that the Court of First Instance sentenced the four defendants to imprisonment, but later the Appeal Court dismissed the charges. by the supreme class The Supreme Court reversed the case Let the Court of Appeal consider a new judgment. Today is therefore to listen to the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The verdict of the Court of Appeal today has two parts: Part 1, in the case of land purchased by the 1st and 2nd defendants, sold to the 3rd and 4th defendants to issue the title deed. Even if the area is more than Nor Sor 3. but all the land The occupier was acquired under the Land Code. There is evidence of possession notification as Aug. 1, as for the excess area. not forest area because of the possession As for the criminal part, the court dismissed the charges against the four defendants.

See also  The last word out of hand; And Sachi laughing; Painful video

The second part is the civil issue. The Criminal Court ruled that The land at the head of the arrowhead Around the rocky area called Khao Phaeng, the court said it was a forest area. Must allow the 3rd and 4th defendants, who are the applicants for the issuance of the title deed, including the workers, are prohibited from staying in the said part of the land. which has an area of ​​approximately 14 rai, but in fact The Department of Lands has ordered to cut off that part of the land to the defendant at 3,4 and the area never entered that area. which has been a practice for a long time But this is according to the judgment.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.