At 6:00 p.m. on April 4, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City issued a verdict against the defendants on the charge of abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the state, the legitimate rights and interests of organizations. , individual.
Why was Ms. Phuong Hang’s sentence reduced even though she did not appeal?
Accordingly, for the appeal of Ms. Dinh Thi Lan and Dang Thi Han Ni, the jury said there was no basis for consideration. Therefore, the appeal was rejected.
The jury sentenced defendant Nguyen Phuong Hang to 2 years and 9 months in prison; Dang Anh Quan to 2 years in prison; Huynh Cong Tan Mai Le Thu Ha and Nguyen Thi Mai Nhi each to 1 year in prison .
Previously in September/ In 2023, the first instance court sentenced defendant Nguyen Phuong Hang to 3 years in prison and Dang Anh Quan to 2 years and 6 months in prison. The remaining three defendants (Tan Ha and Nhi) each received 18 months in prison.
According to the jury in court, defendants Dang Anh Quan and three accomplices admitted all violations and asked for a reduced sentence. punish. Based on the case file and developments in court, the jury determined that Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang and her accomplices organized 57 livestreams and posted false information on social networks that violated her privacy and insulted her reputation. dignity of 10 individuals.
This woman’s live broadcasts received a large number of interactive views, negatively affecting security and order. In which, Mr. Dang Anh Quan participated in 11 livestreams and actively interacted with Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang during the crime process. The remaining defendants assisted Ms. Hang in committing the above violation.
The above acts of Nguyen Phuong Hang and his accomplices have enough elements to constitute the crime of abusing democratic freedoms to invade violate the interests of the State, the legitimate interests of organizations and individuals. From there, the jury determined that the first instance sentence of Ms. Hang and her four accomplices was correct according to the law and not unjust.
According to the jury in this case, the defendants committed organized crime, including Nguyen Phuong Hang As the leader, Mr. Quan encouraged the remaining defendants to help. Since then, the court has divided the roles of each defendant.
After the first instance trial, the defendants pay money to overcome the consequences of the incident. The jury determined that this was a new detail in the case.
Defendant Quan admitted the crime and expressed remorse, providing additional evidence about his family’s contributions to the revolution. The remaining defendants also have many extenuating circumstances, so the appeal needs to be accepted.
For Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang, although she did not appeal, she paid money to remedy the consequences, so the jury believes it is necessary. partially reduced the sentence for this person.
Procuracy: The defendants committed multiple crimes
Defense lawyer for defendant Dang Anh Quan believes that his client did not discuss and agree on the will to commit the crime with Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang. The defendant committed the act to criticize society and propagate the law, only analyzing artist Hoai Linh’s behavior and not accusing anyone of offending anyone.
Accused of organized crime The lawyer said that Mr. Quan had only committed a crime once and asked the jury to consider it during the sentencing process.
In addition, Mr. Quan’s lawyer raised a series of mitigating circumstances such as his family’s good character. The work with the revolution has partly overcome the consequences of the case. From the above analysis, the lawyer recommended that the jury accept the appeal to reduce Mr. Quan’s sentence.
Next, the defense lawyer for the defendants Huynh Cong Tan Nguyen Thi Mai Nhi Le Thi Thu Ha said that these people working for Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang committed crimes in a somewhat insignificant role. The lawyer presented a series of mitigating circumstances asking the jury to accept the appeal for the defendants to receive a suspended sentence.
Even though he did not appeal, this lawyer still asked the jury to consider the mitigation. The penalty for Nguyen Phuong Hang is less than 3 years in prison to reunite with his family soon.
“The defendant is guilty but please consider giving the defendant a little honor” Ms. Phuong Hang said. Immediately a member of the jury interrupted and explained that Ms. Hang did not appeal, so there was no need to present.
After the lawyers presented their defense The defendant and the protection of the person involved, representing the High People’s Procuracy in Ho Chi Minh City, responded.
The prosecutor’s representative raised a series of evidence to prove that in this case the defendants Organized crime commits multiple crimes. The defendants have a certain role, closely colluding with each other throughout the 57 livestream sessions.
The actions of Nguyen Phuong Hang and his accomplices negatively affected social order, so they must be punished. responsible for the above aggravating circumstances. The defendants, Tan Ha Nhi, asked for a suspended sentence. The representative of the Procuracy said that there was no basis for the first instance level to impose a sentence below the penalty frame as appropriate.
At the same time, the prosecutor’s representative affirmed that the This defendant has committed many crimes so he is not eligible for a suspended sentence.
According to the representative of the Procuracy, defendant Quan is a highly educated and knowledgeable person law but still agreed with Nguyen Phuong Hang to commit the offense of insulting violate someone else’s honor. The first instance court sentenced the defendant to 2 years and 6 months in prison, which is commensurate with the level and nature of the crime.
In her final words before the court deliberated, Mai Nhi said that the defendant does not want to offend anyone, just a salaryman who is aware of his own mistakes.
This female defendant as well as Huynh Cong Tan Dang Anh Quan hope the jury will consider reducing the penalty. Defendant Thu Ha said she was a single mother and hoped the court would consider it.
No appeal, but Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang still asked to have the last word. She said she was very happy today but was heartbroken to see her employee become a defendant.
Ms. Phuong Hang said she was wrong in not updating the Cyber Security law
During the trial this morning, defendant Dang Anh Quan said he was only protesting social defense. After presenting the four elements constituting a crime, the defendant said he said Mr. Vo Nguyen Hoai Linh (artist Hoai Linh) was not guilty.
Defendant Quan said he did the above to everyone understands the situation better and does not intend to offend anyone.
The remaining defendants presented the details and asked the court for a suspended sentence.
Also In the morning of the same day, the jury questioned Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang. When answering the jury’s questions about defendant Dang Anh Quan, Ms. Hang said she was wrong in not updating the Cyber Security law.
When asked if Dang Anh Quan ever stopped Ms. Hang from livestreaming or not, the female defendant said: “Say whatever you want, no one can stop me.”
After nearly 3 hours of questioning, the representative of the High People’s Procuracy in Ho Chi Minh City expressed his opinion on the case.
p>
According to the prosecutor’s office, the verdict accusing Mr. Dang Anh Quan and three other defendants of being accomplices of Nguyen Phuong Hang’s assistance is that they are the right people and not wrongful. Regarding the appeal for a suspended sentence by defendants Huynh Cong Tan Mai Le Thu Ha and Nguyen Thi Mai Nhi, the Procuracy said that there were no new details, so there was no basis to accept the appeal.
Dang Anh Quan’s appeal to reduce the penalty stated that this person gave Ms. Nguyen Phuong Hang the will to commit the crime. The first instance court sentenced the defendant to a sentence of 2 years and 6 months in prison, which is commensurate with the crime.
For other requests, the prosecutor’s representative requested the jury to reject all appeals. The statements of the defendants and those involved affirmed the first instance verdict.
“
