Obscene Material Possession and Sentencing Modification Considerations
Article 6: Publication of Obscene Material under Section 287 (1) of the Criminal Code, imprisonment. The defendants were sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two months, which was reduced by half. Consequently, the imprisonment of the defendants was maintained. This is evidenced by the report of one month of investigation and consideration, which revealed that the defendants had previously committed offenses and been fined, and had subsequently re-offended in this case. Therefore, it was deemed inappropriate to await sentencing, and a term of imprisonment of one month was imposed instead.
One defendant was ordered to be detained for one month. The defendants appealed the judgment of the lower court. The Court of Appeal ruled on the case of Mr. Dam and Ms. Daeng. The Court of Appeal found that there were grounds to substitute imprisonment with detention, such as this. Mr. Dam and Ms. Daeng will file a final appeal to challenge the judgment of the Court of Appeal, if necessary.
Regarding the case of Mr. Dam, the lower court sentenced him to imprisonment but imposed a term of detention instead. An appeal was made to prohibit the filing of a final appeal regarding factual issues under Section 219 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Regarding the case of Ms. Daeng, the lower court sentenced her to imprisonment but imposed a term of fine instead of detention, considering it a ruling on the facts. It did not rule on the judgment of the lower court, therefore, it was prohibited from allowing the parties to file a final appeal regarding factual issues under Section 219 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In both of the above cases, they do not fall under the prohibition outlined in Section 218 and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the judges sitting to consider or sign judgments or issue opinions in the lower court or Court of Appeal, or the Prosecutor, can certify the appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code.
302