The Court of Appeal upholds the death sentence of Banyin and the murderer of the judge’s brother. The remaining four defendants life imprisonment and dismissed some small charges against the defendants
On July 1, 2022 atCentral Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases Court of Appeal The case of carrying the murder of the former judge’s brother, the owner of the case for transferring the shares of Sia Chuwong Black Number Or Tor. 69/2563 that the Public Prosecutor of the Anti-Corruption Case Office 3 Ms. Panida Sakuntaprasert is the plaintiff and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit. Lt. Col. Banyin Tangpakorn, former Deputy Minister of CommerceMr. Manus Tubtim, Mr. Narongsak Pomchan, Mr. Chatchai Menkul, Mr. Prachawit or Toon Srithongsuk and Police Major Thongchai or Sergeant Major Aod Wajeesatcha, who are all Phumlamnao, Nakhon Sawan Province, are the defendants 1-6
Recommended news
For nine offences, conspiracy to kill another person in order to conceal one’s other offense or to avoid acquittal for another offense committed. According to the Penal Code (Por. Por.) Section 289, the base is jointly detained or detained anyone in order to obtain a ransom. causing the person to be taken to death Section 309, 313, the base of joint detention of others causes the death of others Section 310, the base of coercion of the officer to perform the wrongful duty by using mayhem by jointly committing 3 or more offenses, Section 139, 140
The base is a thieves’ brothel. by conspiring to commit an offense punishable by the death penalty, Section 210, on the ground of attempting to coerce others To act by jointly committing 5 or more people. Section 213, hidden joint base Destroying a corpse to conceal death and cause of death Article 199, any joint action base to the body before the autopsy was completed to disguise the case
In this case, the Court of First Instance ruled on December 15, 2020 that the 1st defendant was guilty of joint detention causing others to death. Sentenced to death, conspiracy to kill others according to Criminal Code Section 289(4)(7), sentenced to death, for identifying as an official, one year imprisonment, one year imprisonment wearing an official’s uniform, concealed destruction The body was imprisoned for four years, butThe 1st defendant gave benefit to reduce the sentence by 1 in 3 on all counts, and the 1st defendant would be imprisoned for life in one place.
As for the second defendant, he was convicted of contributing to the murder of another person with premise. life imprisonment but to be useful The sentence was reduced to 33 years and 4 months in prison. Defendants 4-6 were convicted of joint detention and confinement (ransom) to death. but to be useful The sentence was reduced to life imprisonment, with the 1st defendant counting the sentence following the 8-year jail term transfer of shares by the Southern Bangkok Criminal Court.
The third defendant committed a deliberate murder (the person who executed it), sentenced to death. and imprison others to death death sentence Benefit reduced to life imprisonment
Subsequently, the plaintiff, the co-defendant, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th defendants appealed, the 3rd defendant did not appeal.
Court of Appeal, Corruption and Misconduct Division Examine the number of consulting meetings and the circumstances with the preparation of equipment Cremation of a body in a place where it is difficult for others to see beforehand. before kidnapping the deceased It clearly indicates that the 1st defendant had deliberate killing intent. before and to conceal the commission of another offense or to avoid the crime of the offense committed in the beginning, the 1st defendant had anticipated that The deceased must resist the easy removal of the deceased. If the deceased resisted, they would use force or insult. the culprit by any means to allow the deceased to consent to the 1st defendant to take the deceased
It could be heard that the 1st defendant used force to injure the deceased with the intention of seeing results. In addition, the first defendant had the intent to kill the deceased from the beginning. Later, the 1st and 3rd defendants led the deceased to be cremated in a prepared place. The death of the deceased was therefore a direct result of the actions of the defendants of the 1st and 3rd defendants.
The plaintiff’s evidence is heavy enough to be heard that the 1st and 3rd defendants jointly killed the deceased. by contemplating and to conceal one’s other offenses or to avoid acquittal in other offenses which has been made under the judgment of the Court of First Instance When the 1st defendant kidnaps the deceased In order for the deceased to negotiate for the plaintiff to join the judgment to dismiss the lawsuit.
Can be considered that the 1st defendant acted by kidnapping the deceased with special intent to call A ransom which completes the elements of the offense, the 2nd defendant is involved with the 1st and 3rd defendants stalking. Movement of the plaintiff and the deceased On the day of the accident, the 2nd defendant drove a car to take the 1st, 3rd and 5th defendant from Nakhon Sawan Province. Come to house number 9/13 and drive from Nakhon Sawan. went to wait for the 1st and 3rd defendants with their group, knowing that the 1st and 3rd defendants had the intent to kidnap the deceased This is to support the 1st defendant and those committing the murder together with premeditated murder. to conceal other offenses of oneself or to avoid being acquitted of other offenses committed by oneself and to jointly detain or detain any person causing the detainee, the detainee or the detainee imprisoned to death
The 4th defendant and the 5th defendant together with the 1st and 3rd defendants detained the deceased, the 4th and 5th defendants were therefore guilty of jointly restraining or detaining the deceased causing the deceased to die. No. 4 and No. 5 had the intent to kidnap the deceased in order to detain him in order to obtain a plow.
When the 3rd defendant uses force to injure the deceased to the point of death, even the 4th and 5th defendants, who are co-leaders There is no intention to cause the deceased to die. The 4th and 5th defendants are liable for the consequences of that death as well. According to Section 63 of the Criminal Code, the 6th defendant understood from the beginning that the 1st defendant asked the 6th defendant to find someone to help collect the debt, but the 4th and 5th defendants did not testify to the investigating officer before. 4 and 5 had knowledge or expertise in legal debt collection before the 6th defendant would have expected that The debt collection of the 1st defendant must be used for force or mayhem. Or detain a person without liberty in the body, the 1st defendant had to let the 6th defendant find someone to help carry it out.
It was heard that the 6th defendant assisted by facilitating the 4th and 5th defendants to travel with the 1st defendant when the 4th and 5th defendants together with the 1st and 3rd defendants took the deceased. The intentional detention of the vehicle for the purpose of obtaining the ransom as judged, the actions of the 6th defendant therefore supported the 1st, 3rd and 5th defendants to commit the offense of joint detention. or imprison others and a base for obtaining a ransom jointly detain or detain other persons according to the judgment of the Court of First Instance, but not only the first paragraph of Section 310, 313 (3), the first paragraph
The Court of Appeal, the Corruption and Misconduct Case Division, deems it appropriate to amend the provisions to be correct as Section 310 paragraph two, 313 (3) last paragraph, together with Section 86, 87 paragraph two.
The question whether it is appropriate to punish the 1st, 4th and 5th defendants lighter than the judgment of the Court of First Instance offense of obtaining a ransom jointly detain or detain any person causing the person to be taken away detainees or detainees die and bases together to kill others by contemplating In order to conceal one’s offense or to avoid a criminal offense committed under the Criminal Code, Section 289 (4) (7) and Section 313 (3), the last paragraph is punishable by the death penalty for only one place. The 1st, 4th and 5th defendants cannot do anything else.
for the offense of wearing the uniform and decorating the mark of an official and showing himself as an official and acting as an official by itself is not an official who has the power to do that and joint base any action on the corpse or the environment where the body was found before the autopsy was completed in such a way that the autopsy was likely to be performed. Turn the body over or the outcome of the case has changed or to disguise the case, the Court of First Instance determines the appropriate punishment. with the circumstances of the case There is no reason for the Court of Appeal for Corruption and Misconduct Cases to change.
The question of whether there is a reasonable ground to reduce the punishment for the six defendants or not. The 1st defendant and the conspiracy and jointly plan to commit the crimes well and the duties are divided step by step The claim that the 1st defendant had a motive from the 1st defendant and those who were unfair in the trial of the joint plaintiff which is the judge who owns the case
The 1st defendant used to serve as a police lieutenant colonel. used to be a member of the House of Representatives and used to be a minister as well as having a lawyer to help defend would know the procedure and methods of considering that they can still exercise their right to appeal and sue the judgment that the 1st defendant and those who use illegal methods to intimidate the judiciary in order for the official to operate in an unlawful manner and committing offenses in public outrageously without respect for the law
Therefore, it is considered a serious case that is a serious threat to society as a whole. and affect the justice process in order not to be exemplary and to prevent commit another offense of this nature Therefore, it is not appropriate to reduce the punishment for the defendant.
see that the confession or the fact of the defendant which will be considered as a mitigating cause According to the Criminal Code, Section 78, it must be a case that provides knowledge to the court that is useful for consideration. The court will then consider reducing the punishment to be inflicted upon the defendant, considering the Court of First Instance.
It appears that the plaintiff has evidence from the CCTV footage captured. Events from the 1st to the 3rd defendant together stalking the plaintiff’s movements together with the deceased. The place where the 6th defendant drove to deliver the 4th and 5th defendant, took the car with the 1st defendant, as well as using a vehicle for traveling from the 1st to 5th defendant from Nakhon Sawan Province. until the parking area Waiting for the deceased in front of the Southern Bangkok Civil Court
CCTV was able to record the events after the 1st, 3rd to 5th defendants took the deceased into the car and fled to the area where equipment was prepared for cremation. with the genetic test report which is evidence forensic science including witnesses from the analysis of mobile phone communication between Continuous offenders are linked together in ad hoc ways. Although the plaintiff has no testimony who witnessed the incident while the 1st and 3rd defendants, but the court relied on the evidence of the plaintiff It is an important evidence in deciding the facts and convicting the six defendants. without the need to rely on the defendant’s acceptance again
Both the 1st defendant confessed after being examined. The plaintiff’s evidence has reason to believe that the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants to the 6th defendant accepted the facts. The 3rd defendant confessed in the trial. because of surrendering to the evidence find a confession because of guilt
Such a confession would not be considered a useful education to the court. to the consideration Therefore, there is no reason to mitigate the punishment under Section 78 of the Penal Code, which should reduce the punishment.
The Court of First Instance reduced the punishment for the six defendants. Court of Appeal, Corruption and Misconduct Division disagree
The judgment corrected that the 1st and 3rd defendants were not guilty of the first paragraph of Section 140 of the Penal Code. The first paragraph of the offense under Section 309 of the Penal Code was merely an attempt to commit an offense under Section 80. The 2nd defendant was not guilty of the offense under Section 80. Criminal Code, Section 289 (4) (7) and Section 314 in conjunction with Section 86, but the 2nd defendant is guilty of the first paragraph of the Penal Code Section 310.
