At the defendant’s trial Dang Thi Han Ni(47 years old lawyer, journalist) Tran Van Sy (67 years old lawyer) on the charge of abusing civil liberties The owner violates the interests of the state, the legitimate interests of organizations and individuals. Ms. Ni admitted to posting information related to Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang on social networks.
Insulting Ms. Phuong Hang for “defense”
In response to the jury, Ms. Han Ni testified that Ms. Phuong Hang continuously broadcast live saying that the defendant blackmailed the business into being a reactionary prostitute…. Faced with the above matters, Ms. Ni sent a petition to the leaders of Binh Duong Provincial Police but it was not resolved, so the defendant went to Facebook to “protest.
The information Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang said about me is not true. I’m not a prostitute, I’m not blackmailing businesses. I am a reporter for the Party newspaper, but she said I was a reactionary that would affect the agency and myself,” defendant Han Ni declared.
The indictment shows that Ms. Han Ni said Ms. Phuong Hang’s name was Ms. The real name is Nguyen Thi Thanh Tuyen and is related to the Nam Cam case. Regarding the above content, Ms. Ni stated that Ms. Hang’s real name is shown in the case also related to the Nam Cam case as the defendant took it from an article. newspaper online.
Next, Han Ni said that because Ms. Hang seriously offended his honor and dignity, the defendant posted content with the title “Who is Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang? “right to squat over the law” to explain that Ms. Hang is just a normal citizen with no right to offend others.
According to the accusation, Ms. Han Ni gave false information and slandered her. violating the privacy of Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang. Regarding the above accusation, the female defendant said that she gave the correct information, but it was possible that her awareness was not appropriate, causing her to confuse personal information and personal secrets. .
< p>When asked by the court whether posting information on social networks is detrimental to Ms. Phuong Hang? Ms. Han Ni said: “I don’t care if the information is beneficial to Ms. Phuong Hang or not.”
Regarding the perception of the motive for committing the crime, the female defendant said at the time of releasing the information. I don’t think I’m wrong, but at this point I’m wrong, but at the level of defense.
“If there are violations, there are many ways to handle them, but I don’t understand why I’m being criminally prosecuted.” Han Ni responded.
Next, Ms. Han Ni cited Article 22 of the 2015 Penal Code regarding legitimate defense, which is not a crime.
Step up Defendant Tran Van Sy said at the podium that he worked as a lawyer and posted some information related to Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang and her husband on cyberspace.
About the time of posting Downloading that content, Mr. Sy declared starting from August 2021. When asked how many broadcasts of information related to Ms. Phuong Hang were held, this defendant said he had no experience with YouTube so he could not remember specifically.
Immediately the presiding judge presided over the trial. Listing the days when Mr. Sy released information related to Phuong Hang, the former lawyer admitted it was correct.
Defendant Sy admitted that the information he posted on social networks was detrimental to Ms. Nguyen. Phuong Hang of Hang Huu fund. The reason for carrying out the above action, this man said, stemmed from the landlady travel Dai Nam continuously violated the law, making him angry. Since then, Mr. Sy has posted contrary information so that everyone can better understand the incident.
Talking about being prosecuted under Clause 2, Article 331 of the 2015 Penal Code, defendant Sy said The People’s Procuracy’s prosecution is correct, not unjust.
The trial continues with questioning and is expected to last all day.
The Procuracy recommends a sentence</strong >
According to the prosecutor’s representative, from September 2021 to February 2022, Tran Van Sy used the YouTube account “Lawyer Tran Van Sy”; Dang Thi Han Ni used the YouTube and Facebook accounts “Journalist Han Ni” to post articles and organize many recording sessions on social networks with false content aimed at insulting Mr. Huynh’s dignity and reputation. Uy Dung and his wife Nguyen Phuong Hang.
This violates the legitimate interests of Dai Nam Joint Stock Company (Binh Duong) and Hang Huu Charity Fund.
The behavior of defendant Han Ni Van Sy violated points a b clause 3 Article 16; Point b, Clause 1, Article 17 of the Law on Cyber Security 2018 (seriously insulting the honor, reputation, dignity of others by fabricating false information) and Point d, Clause 1, Article 5 of Decree No. 71/2013/ND-CP (Giving slanderous and distorted information that harms the reputation of others).
According to the Procuracy, the defendants’ actions are dangerous to society and have a negative impact on social security, so a high level of punishment is needed. Severe sentence to serve as an educational deterrent. Especially in this case, the people involved are Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang and her husband and Dai Nam Company, which is well known to many people.
Defendant Sy is subject to an aggravating circumstance of committing the crime multiple times. and many mitigating circumstances were applied, such as honestly declaring that he had made many contributions to society.
During the investigation process, defendant Han Ni did not admit to committing a crime, but the questioning process admitted that he had committed a crime. If you are aware of violations during your work process, you will be awarded many certificates of merit.
From the above analysis, the representative of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Procuracy requested the jury to sentence defendant Tran Van Sy to a sentence of 2 years to 2 years and 6 months. prison and Dang Han Ni from 1 year 6 months to 2 years in prison.
The trial begins to debate.
“
