Judicial Review of Sentencing Disagreement Regarding Criminal Penalties
Theft, pursuant to the Criminal Code, Section 334, with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for no more than 6,000 baht, and requesting the court to detain the defendant, due to the defendant having a bad habit. Mr. To presided as the judge, and Mr. Diao presided over the case as the sole judge. The defendant admitted his guilt, and the admission was reduced by half, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for 6 months. The court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for theft of one count, but Mr. Ek, the chief judge of the District Court, who did not preside over the case, jointly reviewed the case and disagreed with the judgment, stating that one year was sufficient for the aforementioned reason, and issued a dissenting opinion. Mr. To had read the judgment as follows: Is the aforementioned judgment lawful, and if so, why?
The answer is: Mr. To, the sole judge, has the authority to adjudicate and sentence, as it is a criminal case with a maximum penalty of imprisonment as defined by law, not exceeding three years, and further stipulates a maximum imprisonment of six months, which is within his authority to sentence. The fine of 6,000 baht imposed by the sole judge of the District Court is in accordance with the Code of Justice.
Regarding detention, Mr. To ordered the detention of the defendant for a period of 5 years. Mr. To, the sole judge, has the authority to order detention, as detention is not a criminal punishment and is considered a precautionary measure. Mr. Ek, the chief judge of the District Court, although not presiding over the case, was able to review the case and issue a judgment if he did not agree with the judgment, and therefore issued a dissenting opinion. The imprisonment of 6 months and detention of the defendant for 5 years imposed by Mr. To is detrimental to the defendant less than the imprisonment imposed by Mr. Ek pursuant to the Penal Procedure Code, Section 1 year, and the Act Establishing District Courts and Criminal Procedure in District Courts, Section 184 and Section 4 as follows: the judgment in this case is in accordance with the Code of Justice, Articles 11, 15, and 22(5), the Penal Procedure Code, and the Act Establishing District Courts and Criminal Procedure in District Courts.