On August 14, in courtroom 701 Criminal Court at Ratchadapisek Road, the court read the verdict of the Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (UDD), terrorism, black numbers, A.A. Mr. Veerakan Musikpong, 71 years old, former UDD President, Mr. Jatuporn or Tu Phromphan, 54 years old, President of UDD, Mr. Natthawut or Sai Yuek dance, 44 years old, Secretary General of UDD
Dr. Wen Tojira, 68 years old, Mr. Kao Kaew Phikunthong, 54 years old, Mr. Kwanchai Sarakham or Phrai Phana, 67 years old, Mr. Yoswarit Chu Klom or a unique club, 61 years old, Mr. Nisit Sinthu Phrai, 63 years old, Mr. Karun or Kenghoosakul, 52 years old, Mr. Wiphu Phatthanaphumathai, 68 years old, Mr. Pumkiti or Phichet Sukchindathong, 59 years old, Mr. Suk Sek or Sukphol Tuen 43 years old
Mr. Charan or Giant Loypoon, 48, Mr. Amnat Inthachot, 63, Mr. Chayut Lancharoen, 46, Mr. Sombat or Red Daeng Thong, 57, Mr. Surachai or Lang Thewarat, 34, Mr. Rachat or Kobwongyod, Mr. Yongyuth Thewammee , 63 years old, Mr. Aram Saengaroon, 58 years old, Mr. Jems Singhasit, 38 years old, Mr. Sompong or Aor or guest or fort Bang Chom, Mr. Manop or Chan Chan, goldsmith, 58 years old, Mr. Arisan Mr. Jahangir's guide brilliantly ran all 55 and Udd alignment cards. Order Defendant 1-24.
On charges of joint terrorist charges Use of violence Or do something to damage state property Public benefit Trying to threaten the Thai government that it will take any action Or cause turbulence, causing fear among people Pursuant to art. 135/1 of the Penal Code, threatening terrorism Assembling soldiers or weapons Or preparing for a plot to terrorize Article 135/2 and joining or gathering in at least 5 places in the place responsible for the announcement This violated the provisions issued in accordance with section 9 of the Extraordinary Decree on public administration in 2005
As for Mr Yoswarit, the seventh defendant, he was charged additional fees for the robbery and destruction of property. In accordance with art. 340 of the Penal Code, 340 Tri, 358 and Mr. Arisan, 24 were charged with additional charges on behalf of the public, verbally. Or any other method that has not been carried out in accordance with the purpose of the Constitution. To enable people to violate land law of section 116, mix together with at least 10 people, use violence to threaten violence, or do something that causes chaos in the country by one criminal with a weapon Or as head of order, section 215, and when the official orders to stop the action and not give up
The plaintiff's complaint stated that the defendant incited people to constantly join the UDD group from February 28 to May 20, 2010 in order to put pressure on the government. And forced at that time to threaten Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. Announcement of the dissolution of the Council for new elections He argued that Abhisit had improperly become prime minister and annulled the 2007 constitution, in which the defendants jointly organized a rally on the Phan Fa Lilat bridge. And the Ratchaprasong intersection In addition, demonstrations were held blocking various locations with weapons, firing bombs, M 79 firing at brothels. Gather troops and lethal war weapons Workforce training and practice of using weapons for terrorism.
All the defendants denied all allegations. Most of them receive a deposit, including securities of 600,000 Baht, including terms. Do not do anything. The appearance of offensive others, provoking incitement to cause chaos in the country. Or it may harm the honor, reputation and well-being of others Or peace Or good people's morality With a ban on leaving the country unless the court agrees
In this case, the prosecutor gradually filed a lawsuit against the UDD leadership group as a collection of 4 rhetoric from August 11, 2010. As a black case, district No. 2542/2553, A. 4339/2553, A.A. 757/2554, A.A. 4958/2554, until 24 people have completed the same case
Which takes time to analyze evidence and witnesses for 9 years. During the hearing, the witness periodically examines the meeting. To determine the framework of the investigation and the investigation period Because both the defendant and the defendant Everyone offer hundreds of oral witnesses Continuing the hearing of the witness Who began to witness the plaintiffs from December 2012 and began investigating the defendant in 2019. the date set for the hearing today (14 August 2019)
Today Mr. Veerakan, Mr. Natthawut, Mr. Chatuporn, MD, Dr. Huang Karn and allies of UDD who were released on bail to hear the sentence. With the exception of Sombat Soothong, the sixteenth accused, he died with Surachai Tewarat, the seventeenth accused who fled and took Sompong Bang to see 23 defendants imprisoned in a special prison in Bangkok. Come to hear the sentence
In addition, there are: Mrs. Thida Thawonset, UDD adviser, Mr. Wina Plub Chatmonont, UDD lawyer, along with a team of lawyers. And more than ten people who travel to support the UDD group to hear the sentence While the court has police from the Phahon Yothin police station, and police officers (Court Marcel) join the court protection and inside the courtroom
The court read the verdict. He examined the evidence that both parties confirmed and saw it. Acts that would be a terrorist offense. It must be an act constituting an element of the offense specified in art. 135/1 paragraph 1-3 of the Penal Code, which must be characterized by violence or any kind of activity that harms life
Or serious harm to the body or the freedom of any person to take action that causes serious damage to the public transport system Telecommunications system Or infrastructure that is beneficial to society Any action that causes damage to the property of one state, any person or the environment Which causes or can cause significant economic damage
However, such actions must be undertaken with special intention. To threaten or force the Thai government Foreign government Or international organizations to act or not do anything that will cause serious harm Or cause fear among people But if it was an act of demonstration, protest or movement to call for help or be honest This is exercising the rights and freedoms arising from the Constitution. This action is not a crime against terrorism.
From the evidence obtained after the prosecutor's certificate There was no witness who would testify There is an accused who is the leader of the UDD group who gave the speech or acted as an incentive for participants to act, as reported. According to § 135/1 para. 1-3 of the Criminal Code, although the plaintiff has witnesses who testify that a lot of serious incidents occur during the UDD rally. According to the facts described by the plaintiff in the complaint
But the plaintiff's witness did not testify. Such incidents are actions of any person or action of any party. There is no validation of news sources that are true or not. There are also many prosecutor's witnesses who testify before the court that UDD rallies are political claims of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to dissolve parliament and hold new elections.
Serious events that took place during the rally In particular on April 10, 2010. There were no testimonies from witnesses confirming whether UDD group travel Journey to parliament and Thaicom satellite station It was a journey that required the government to order the TV station People & # 39; s Channel that the government ordered the signal to be shut down or cut off.
Earlier, blacks did not seem to be forces of any party. And he could not arrest any person during this time, despite the presence of a black man with a large number of people. Therefore, government officials are unlikely to arrest the prosecution in a timely manner
The leader of the UDD group spoke on stage. If the soldiers come out to disperse the assembly Or a coup Let people bring oil and burn it There is a speech on the stage before the day that there will be a large assembly of days And there were no incidents that would destroy property because there was any speech The arson occurred in the afternoon of May 19, 2010, after UDD leaders announced the end of the rally.
In which the Supreme Court ruled on the arson of burning property According to the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court 8132/2561, this is not an act of the UDD group. The speech calls on the people to oppose the coup d'état as a legitimate right that can be done. It is in no way considered a violation of the law
The UDD assembly called for Mr. Abhisit. The prime minister announced the dissolution of the council and held new elections. Have the use of political claims Protesters' leaders have always proclaimed a way of fighting as a peaceful demonstration. Calm and unarmed, he refused to continue with the actions of Major General Khattiya Sawasdipol or Seth Daeng and those who had a different approach to the fight
The operations of Maj-Gen Khattiya and Nakhon are therefore not a UDD group activity because protesters' leaders, UDD, have always proclaimed their position of peaceful assembly. Calm and unarmed The UDD assembly has many participants. Therefore, there may be people who do not hope to hide in order to create a situation. Be an illegal gathering
The fact that Mr. Yosawarit, the seventh accused and the blockade of military personnel on the Somdet Phra Pinklao bridge Then took the weapon to show it to the media at the stage of the speech Later, the officers involved returned all the weapon or other people.
Therefore, it is not a common disadvantage. Cause arson, burning property and destruction of government property at Somdet Phra Pinklao Bridge Occupied after the 7th accused brought a gun to show the media Not because the 7th defendant returned In case you can't hear that the 7th defendant committed a crime of on the loss of property
The plaintiff filed this case, including 5 requests for rhetoric to punish terrorist bases. Sueing a lecture on various offenses To supplement the error component And did not ask for punishment for various offenses As described by the plaintiff in the complaint It is so that the plaintiff does not want to punish As for the plaintiff's request to punish only Arisan, 24. the accused in various offenses Which is the element of error
He hears that this is a continuous action related to the prosecutor's case because the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against 24 defendants against the Pattaya provincial court. The case was provoked by them to interrupt the meeting of ASEAN leaders and the Pattaya provincial court convicted the plaintiff's complaint in this part is therefore a re-action. In accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, section 39 (4)
Although the government announced a major emergency in Bangkok and metropolitan areas And then the Crisis Center (CRC) announced a ban on gathering or gathering in such areas. Issuing such an announcement To control the situation of the UDD group, which is together for several consecutive days But after a major announcement emergency situation No evidence of testimony reasons that UDD leaders organized another meeting In addition to places that have already been assembled The actions of accused 1-15 and accused 18-24 are not guilty.