Bangkok Legal Service

The Prosecutor, Plaintiff, prosecuted the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 on charges of jointly stealing the victim’s walking stick or receiving stolen property, resulting in sentencing according to the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court inquired with both defendants regarding their attorneys and found that both stated they did not wish to have an attorney. The Court inquired about the plea and accepted the confession of guilt for theft, pursuant to Section 334. Defendant No. 2 admitted to having committed the offense charged by the Plaintiff and heard the testimony that Defendant No. 2 had given the walking stick to a person named “Jeb Puan.” Subsequently, the parties stated they did not wish to make further submissions and signed the record sheet on the same day. Both defendants were found guilty under the Criminal Code, sentencing as follows: Section 335 (7) as to whether the judgment of the Court was in accordance with the law, considering the reasons for the answer. The admission of guilt by Defendant No. 1 to the charge of jointly stealing the walking stick or receiving stolen property, pursuant to Section 334, 335, 357 and 83 of the Criminal Code, still denied the Plaintiff’s claim for charges under the Criminal Code, which meant that Defendant No. 1 was charged under Section 335, 357 and 83 of the Criminal Code. When the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1, and Defendant No. 2 stated they did not wish to make further submissions, it was determined that the defendants admitted to the facts presented during the trial only in the case of theft, pursuant to Section 334 of the Criminal Code. The testimony of Defendant No. 1 was not a confession to the charges, and the Court could sentence him without further investigation pursuant to Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the Court’s judgment that Defendant No. 1 was guilty under Section 335 of the Criminal Code was unlawful (6 points). The testimony of Defendant No. 2, stating that he wished to confess to having committed the offense charged by the Plaintiff and heard the testimony that Defendant No. 2 had given the walking stick to a person named “Jeb Puan,” was unclear whether Defendant No. 2 confessed to the charges against him. Because the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1, and Defendant No. 2 stated they did not wish to make further submissions, the Plaintiff did not pursue the presentation of evidence before the Court, finding that Defendant No. 2 had committed a crime in the case of theft, pursuant to Section 334 of the Criminal Code, and although the plea for punishment of Defendant No. 2 contained the statement that Defendant No. 2 had given the walking stick to a person named “Jeb Puan,” this was not a confession by Defendant No. 2. The Court imposed a light sentence, and the statements in the plea did not indicate that Defendant No. 2 admitted to any offense. The Court could not sentence Defendant No. 2 to any offense because there was no confession to the charges, and the Court could continue to judge him according to Section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, in this case, the Court must acquit Defendant No. 2. Therefore, the Court’s judgment that Defendant No. 2 was guilty under Section 335 (7) of the Criminal Code was also unlawful (4 points).