BANGKOK, July 10 - The Supreme Court sentenced "Tharit" to two years in prison without parole for accusing "Abhisit-Suthep" of ordering the killing of people to disperse the UDD mob in 2010.

At 5:30 p.m., the court sat on the bench and read the petition that Mr. Tharit, the 1st defendant, submitted five petitions to the Supreme Court.

The court reads the judgment of the Supreme Court. By examining the evidence, there was a requirement to decide whether all the defendants had committed an offense as the Court of Appeal ruled or not. saw that the Department of Special Investigation by the 1st defendant already knew that Neither myself nor the agency have the duty to investigate the two persons. who holds political office The matter must be submitted to the NACC with the authority to summarize the matter to the Attorney General. to sue to the Supreme Court Criminal Division for Persons Holding Suspicious Political Positions And at the meeting in December 2012, the 1st defendant expressed his opinion, directing the Department of Special Investigation staff to investigate for evidence. and summoned both plaintiffs to acknowledge the allegations

Moreover, at that time, during the government of Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra, Mr. Thaksin's sister. Shinawatra, who is politically opposed to the two plaintiffs. It can be heard that the bullying of both plaintiffs received criminal penalties. to meet the needs of the new government After that, Mr. Tharit held the position of Director-General of the Department of Special Investigation for another year. listen without a doubt The first defendant's defense has no weight to refute the plaintiff's evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the 1st Defendant actually committed the offense. There is an issue that must be judged whether the 2-4 defendants have committed an offense as indicted or not. It was seen that the evidence of plaintiffs 1 and 2 were still unclear and it did not appear that defendants 2-4 benefited from reporting the allegations to both plaintiffs. But the idiom was made from receiving the case and the direction of the 1st defendant. which the defendant 2-4 may conduct a lawsuit in good faith There are still doubts about the allegations in the indictment. therefore giving the benefit of doubt to the defendants 2-4

The punishment according to the judgment of the Court of Appeal The Supreme Court disagreed. imprisonment for the 1st defendant According to the Court of Appeal's verdict, he was sentenced to 2 years in prison without parole, while the 2nd and 4th defendants were dismissed. While listening to the verdict, Mr. Tharit have a calm face Show no symptoms whatsoever Later, correctional officers came to control Mr. Tharit. to be taken into custody at the Bangkok Special Prison According to the judgment of the Supreme Court .-Thai News Agency

Source: Thai News Agency