Case

 

Pol. Col Nithitorn Jintaganonda, the superintendent of the Technology-Related Crime Support Group, Technological Crime Suppression Division found the video clip with audio of the defendant being spread on YouTube. He then saved the clip and filed the complaint to Pol. Lt. Gen.Supoj Khamwongsa, the inquiry official of Technological Crime Suppression Division, to press charge against the defendant.

Pol. Col. Siripong Timula, Deputy Commander of the Technological Crime Suppression Division, examined the clip and found that it was produced by Camfrog program on the internet. He also found that the computer server which provided the internet service located in CAT Tower. He then requested the Bangkok South Criminal Court to give a permission to copy, decode, inspect, or access to the computer system, computer data, computer traffic data, and also, to seized the computer system. He also asked the court to issued a search warrant for the room no.17 in CAT Tower, Bangrak sub-district, Bangkok.

 

3 March 2010

 

Police officers searched room no.17 in CAT Tower, Bangrak sub-district, Bangkok and seized an IOK rack server no. (S/N) BTH IDC # 05 ip address 122.155.14.82 from the co-owner Nattawut Boonyuenman and Lt. Kanyapat Chupratheep WRTA as an exhibit.

 

6 March 2010

 

Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdiphol went to meet the inquiry official at the Crime Suppression Division to proceed with the case but Pol. Maj. Chayadej Kyaruek and other officers had search Maj. Gen. Khattiya’s car and found the defendant hiding in the car. They then presented the Criminal Court of Southern Bangkok’s arrest warrant and the Court of Meanburi’s arrest warrant and arrested him. He was then sent to the inquiry officer for the investigation. In the investigation process the police notified the charges as follows against the defendant:

1. Appearance to the public by words, writings or any other means which is not an act within the purpose of the Constitution or for expressing an honest opinion or criticism in order to raise unrest and disaffection amongst the people in a manner likely to cause disturbance in the Kingdom.

2.Threatening others and stirring fears, according to the Criminal Code section 392.

3.Import to a computer system of false computer data in a manner that is likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic according to the the Computer-related Crime Act Section 14(2). In the investigation process the defendant denied. He was detained since the day of the arrest and was still detained by the Criminal Court's detention order according to the detention request for the Black Case no. Por 555/2553.

 

10 March 2010

 

The computer server’s equipment in dispute was returned to Lt. Kanyapat Chupratheep WRTA.

 

14 June 2010

 

The defendant submitted an affidavit to denied the charges

 

21 December 2010

 

Examined the first witness for the prosecution, Pol. Col. Nithitorn Jintaganonda , the superintendent of Technogical Support Group, under the Technological Crime Suppression Division – the first accuser.

 

Examined the second witness for the prosecution, Pol. Col. Siripong Timula, Deputy Commander of the Technology-Related Crime Support Group, Technological Crime Suppression Division. He was given an order by his commander on 2 March 2010 to inspect the YouTube where the defendant’s video clip that contained a message which could stir public panic were posted.

 

22 December 2010

 

Examined the third witness for the prosecution, Pol.Lt. Col. Narong Manmuern, the inquiry officer of of the Technological Crime Suppression Division who searched the CAT tower.

 

Examined the fourth witness for the prosecution, Pol. Lt. Col. Suradej Thewsrisuwan, the investigation inspector of Ladkrabang police station who complained to the inquiry officer of Ladkrabang police station that the defendant committed a crime under section 116(2) and 392 of the penal code on 3 March 2010.

 

Examined the fifth witness for the prosecution, Pol. Capt. Adule Tongpej, the inquiry officer of Ladkrabang police station, one of the inquiry team who working on the case where video clip that cause public panic was publicized.

 

Examined the sixth witness for the prosecution, Pol. Lt. Nimit Jareurnboon, deputy investigation inspector of Ladkrabang police station, the observer in the investigation of Mrs.Siriporn Kamonwanthanakul - the defendant’s ex-wife.

 

Examined the seventh witness for the prosecution, Nikorn Tangpromjit, an audience who feel frightened after watched the defendatn's video clip.

 

Examined the eight witness for the prosecution Ronnachai Sangkamitrgul, an audience who feel frightened after watched the defendant's video clip via ASTV

 

23 December 2010

 

Examined the ninth witness for prosecution, Nattawut Boonyeunmann, owner of the seized computer server.

 

Examined the tenth witness for the prosecution, Thanakrit Sirakornrojananan, the owner of Siam Commercial Bank saving account no. 4017391569, Tesco Lotus, Town in Town branch which opened for Miss Sunipetch (his aunt) to do an apartment trading business. He posted the account number on the Camfrog website. 

 

Examined the eleventh witness for the prosecution, Miss Sunipetch Pattarasiricho, the lessee of the Voice of Change webboard, superseding Mrs.Salukjit Sangmueng who deceased.

 

24 December 2010

 

Examined the twelfth witness for the prosecution, Lt. Kanlayapat Chupratheep WRTA, the owner of the server that supplied the Camfrog Program.

The thirteenth witness for the prosecution, Nut Payongsri, an officer of the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT), who gave the explanation of the Comfrog features.

The fourteenth witness for the prosecution, Sakrin Sirirat, a Camfrog user.

 

25 January 2011

 

Examined the fifteenth witness for prosecution, Pol. Lt. Amorn Kwangpain, the inquiry officer of Thakam police station who was informed that there was an object that looked like a bomb in front of the Bangkok Bank, Rama 2 branch.

 

Examined the sixteenth witness for the prosecution, Pol.Lt. Somkit Cheewaphalaboon, the inquiry officer of Prapradaeng local police station, who was informed by Phra Pradaeng radio center that there was an explosion in front of Bangkok Bank Prapradaeng branch.

 

Examined the seventeenth witness for the prosecution Miss Wuttiporn Khamkyo, a Voice of Change's audience, who claimed that she didn’t hear what the defendant said because she was busy playing a game on the other website.

 

27 January 2011

 

Examined the eighteenth witness for the prosecution, Pol. Lt. Col. Supoj Khamwongsa, the inquiry officer of the Technological Crime Suppression Division, the inquiry officer of the case.

 

8 February 2011

 

Examined the first witness for the defendant, Pornwat or Kthong , the defendant testified as his own witness. Pornwat said he is a very well learned of astrology and computer science. By the end of 2006, he listened to a show, hosting in the Voice of Freedom chat room using the Camfrog program in which Miss Salakjit Sangmuerng was the chat room owner. Later on, he was asked to be the host of the show which discusses about Astrology and Political issues. When the chat room was shut down, Miss Salakjit had opened a new chat room named “Voice of Change”. The defendant did hosted the show held in the chat room, but the words mentioned in the accusation were just a part of the astrology show that predict a political situation. The show lasts about an hour. There were 60 to 80 users who listened to the show. The defendant did said the phrases mentioned in the complaint, but the phrases were not false since it was a prediction based on astrology - not intended to raise unrest and disaffection amongst the people. The defendant did not filmed the show and did not publicize video clip on Youtube website. It was the third person under the alias “didysister” distributed parts of the visual and audio the defendant spoke on the website.

 

10 February 2011

 

Examined the second witness for the defendant, Mr.Akachai Moongate, The first defendant of the Black Case no. 1252/2553, who was accused of possessing ammunitions that the authority cannot issued a license and is responsible for the explosion in which the court has given a verdict of 8 years imprisonment, the case was made in the Red Case no. 121/2554, claimed that he had nothing to do with the bomb explosion on 27 February 2010.

 

The third witness for the defendant, Miss Sasiyapa Paramee, a flight attendant of Air Siam Airline and Cathay Pacific Airline, who was the audience of Voice of Freedom.

 

18 March 2011

 

The court delivered a verdict to dismissed the charge. The court has analyzed the evidence and witnesses, and found that:

 

1.The phrases that the defendant said, the prosecutor did not state clearly that which one is false. The prosecutor only stated it in general. Also, the prosecutor did not explain what the truth was, which makes it difficult for the defendant to defend himself. Thus the accusation is plaintiff vague

 

2.Though the prosecutors’ adduction doesn’t include the accusation of: import to a computer system of any computer data related to an offence against the internal security of the Kingdom and offence in respect of terrorization into the computer system; according to the Computer-related Crimes Act article 14(3), acknowledging the defendant of the charge according to the section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code chiefly means to inform the defendant what he will be investigated about; It doesn’t mean that the prosecutor has to press every charges. Thus, when a charge is pressed, the related charge is considered already investigated. The prosecutor has the right to press the charge.

 

3.Camfrog is a computer program that allows users to exchange audio and visual via the internet. Users can operate an online conference, exchange opinion, and display videos. There are many chat rooms on Camfrog, divided by topics of conversation. Every users can enter any chat room and can freely watch/listen to any show being held there - means it makes an appearance to the public. The show held in such the computer program - that allows users to exchange visual and audio via the internet is considered to be the importation of data into the computer system

 

The defendant’s speech according to the accusation should be interpreted as a whole - not in a word or a phrase in order to be able to understand the intention but the prosecutor’s accused quotation doesn’t come with pharses that come before or after. The defendant’s speech in the Astrology and Politics being held on Camfrog, which the prosecutor has quoted is only 2.50 mins long, while on that day, the defendant’s show lasted more than an hour.

After considering the defendant’s accused speech, it seem that such speech would cause its audience panic, but there is no phrase that would incite or provoke disaffection.

Thus, the case does not fit into article 116 of the criminal code, which is an offence against the internal security of the Kingdom. Even though the defendant did said such phrases in the chat rooms, which considered to be the importation of data into the computer system, the defendant cannot be judged guilty related to the importation of any computer data related with an offence against the security of the Kingdom into computer system - Computer-related Crimes Act article 14(3).

 

4. In the charge accusing the defendant of importing any computer data related with an offence in respect of terrorization into the computer system, the prosecutor doesn’t explain the detail about what the defendant did that should be considered guilty according to the Criminal Code article 135/1 to 135/4. Thus, the charge has nothing to be analyzed.

 

5. As it is a nature of television shows, the host’s job is to make the show appear interesting in order to attract many audience. The defendant’s speech is to be communicated to his audience, who is already familiar with the style of the show and like it. Thus, there is no indicator that the speech is aimed to threaten, or cause panic.

 

6. For the distribution via Youtube website - making it known to the public, the prosecutor cannot prove that there’s a connection between the defendant and “didysister” - the person who distributed the video on the website. So it is inadmissible that the defendant distributed the video, in order to cause panic.

From the above reasons, the Court of First Instance dismiss the charge.

 

12 May 2011

 

The public prosecutor, Office of Attorney General, the Special Attorney General Office on Criminal Suit 10 – the prosecutor submited an appeal.