Case

10 May 2010

Songkram Chimchirt wrote a letter of complaint (print version) to Sirin Chuthamsatit, the managing director of Thai Industrial Gas Public Company Limited. The letter states that his son was accidentally drown and was in the hospital. The Thai Industrial Gas Labor Union had donated for the hospital expense. 

 On 6 May 2010, Parichat Polpala, an executive called him in and ordered him to stop participating in the Union's activities but he refused. Parichat therefore cursed his son and said that she regretted to donate a thousand baths for him. After  referred to the story above   Songkram stated  that what had happened is highly inappropriate. He also attached 

a 1,150 baht postal order, enumerating that the 1,000 baht was the capital, the 150 baht was an interest, added up to 1,150 baht in total, in order to give it back to Parichat, and to let her know that there was no more indebtedness between them.

Later on, Parichat filed a defamation charge against Songkram. As the letter was also distributed  via email, this case also fall under Computer Related Crime Act.

 

14 June 2010

 Bangplee police officer issued a summon to Songkram to acknowledge his accusation.

 

30 May 2011

The attorney filed a charge against Songkram Chimchirt at Samutprakarn Court, accusing him of the defamation charge, by using media as a mean, according to the Criminal Code section 326 and 328 and of  importing false data into a computer system - which could be  harmful to the public, according to the 2007 Computer-Related Crime Act section 14(1).

7-8 June 2011

A settlement was made. Parichat Polpala decided to withdraw the defamation charge. However, the computer crime charge, being a criminal charge, could not be withdrawn.

24 and 25 April 2012

six witness for the prosecution  were examined, including Parichat, 3 employees, 1 translator, 1 inquiry officer. A witness for the defence, which was the defendant himself was also examined in the same day.

Teerapan Punkeeree, the defendant’s lawyer gave an interview to Prachathai website on 25 April 2012, saying that from the attestation, it is unlikely that the defendant will be convict of importing false data, since the prosecutor cannot prove that the information is false. Even though there was a witness, the prosecutor didn’t examine him or her. For the importation of data into a computer system claim, the attestation was that: when Songkram sent a letter of complaint to his director, he also faxed the letter to the board of the Labor Union to asking for help. He didn’t realized that it will be distribute since he didn’t use email. Moreover, the witnesses and evidence that the prosecutor examined cannot confirm who was the sender. The prosecutor only assumed that, because Songkram is the owner of the letter, he should be the one who send it, or ask someone else to send it for him.

25 May 2012

Samutprakarn Court delivered a verdict. The judge announced the verdict at 10.20 am. The verdict, stating that Parichat Polpala, the manager of Thai Industrial Gas Public Company Limited victim of the case charged Songkram Chirtchin, the Thai Industrial Gas Labor Union ‘s subcommittee with the charge of  sending a defaming letter and importing false data into a computer system. Later Parichat withdrew the defamation charge, which was a civil offence. The computer crime charge still remained. Songkram Chirtchin, the defendant denied all the charges. The court stated that, from the prosecutor’s examination, the defendant was the writer of the letter of complaint - which was sent to Sirin Chuthammasatit, the Thai Industrial Gas Public Company Limited’s committee. The prosecutor had no evidence to support that the defendant was the sender of the email – which had the letter and a file attached  via the computer system to the company’s employees and the third party. There was no evidence that the prosecutor had checked with the email service provider and the computer network provider whether the Window Live.com’s email belong to the defendant or not , and whose computer the email had been sent from in order  to prove that the defendant is the sender. Even though the case has proven that, the defendant stated in the copy of the letter of complaint to the Labor Union and other people, the circumstance is not enough to point out unequivocally that the defendant is the sender of the email into computer system. Only a proof that the defendant is the letter’s writer, or only the assumption that the defendant is guilty is not enough. Together with the defendant’s constant denial,  the prosecutor’s evidence is not sufficient to convict that the defendant is guilty. The court dismisses the charge.