Judgment no. 349/2017/HSST dated november 16, 2017 on theft of property

THE PEOPLE’S COURT OF HANOI CITY

JUDGMENT NO. 349/2017/HSST DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2017 ON THEFT OF PROPERTY

On November 16, 2017, the first-instance trial was conducted in the public at the office of the People’s Court of Hanoi City to hear the handled first-instance criminal case No.: 375/2017/TLST-HS dated October 11, 2017 according to the Decision to bring the case to the trial No. 357/2017/QDXXST-HS dated October 11, 2017 against the following defendant:

Mai Van H (Other name: None), born in: 1993; gender: Male

Registered permanent residence: …. Thanh Hoa province; residence: …..Me Linh district, Hanoi City; Occupation: Worker; Educational level: 12/12; Nationality: Vietnamese; Ethnic group: Kinh; religion: None; Father: Mr. Mai Van H, born in 1971; Mother: Mrs. Truong Thi H – born in 1971; Wife: Mai Thi K – born in 1990; Child: Mai Thi Kim A – born in 2014;

Criminal records and previous convictions: None; the defendant has been held in detention on April 28, 2017.The change of the preventive measure has been made on June 23, 2017. Currently, the defendant is subject to the following preventive measure: Residential confinement.

Civil plaintiff: Elentec Vietnam Co., Ltd.;

General Director: Mr. Joon Suk Goon, nationality: Korean; headquarters: Lot 44F and 44J, Quang Minh Industrial Zone, Me Linh district, Hanoi City; Absent.

Person having duties and interests from the lawsuit:  Mr. Mai Van H (Father of the defendant); Residence:........ Nga Son district, Thanh Hoa province; absent.

CONTENTS OF THE CASE

According to documents in the case file and events at the trial, the contents of the case are summarized as follows:

Mai Van H was a worker of Elentec Vietnam Co., Ltd. (a wholly foreign-owned company), General Director: Mr. Joon Suk Goon, nationality: Korean; headquarters: Lot 44F and 44J, Quang Minh Industrial Zone, Me Linh district, Hanoi City. H was assigned to transport finished electronic components for mobile phones from the manufacturing factory to sales area of the company. On April 15, 2017, H was assigned to work a night shift (from 20:00 PM, on April 15, 2017 to 08:00 AM, on April 16, 2017). During that night shift, H was assigned to transport the lot of screens of Samsung J320-brand cell phones, code: GH 97-18399B, kept in plastic boxes. H and Ms. Bac Thi L (born in 1994, residence:………… Me Linh district, Hanoi City) who is in charge of monitoring quantity of finished products had delivered the transported lot of products to Ms. Nguyen Thi T (born in 1985, residence:……., Phuc Yen town, Vinh Phuc province) who is an employee of the sales department. After checking and receiving 100 cell phone screens, Ms. T moved them to the warehouse awaiting delivery to Samsung Thai Nguyen Company.

Until 06:00 AM, on April 16, 2017, when workers took 30-minute rest at the end of the work shift, H lied down for a rest at the sales department. H found that there was nobody at the sales department, so he worked out a plan to steal cell phone screens and sell them for money. H accessed the product box delivered to Ms. T and opened it by his right hand. H took 15 cell phone screens of J320 symbol, and put them into the pockets of his jacket which was then hidden underneath the chair at the sales department.

Ending the shift, H took all cell phone screens he stole with him and hid them at his residing place which is a leased room at Group 2, Chi Dong town, Me Linh district, Hanoi City. Then, H used his Samsung J7-brand cell phone to publish a new item that "Brand-new Samsung J320 screens – price: VND 5,000,000” on “Chợ tốt.vn” website via user account: 0979792456 with the purpose of selling such amount of stolen cell phone screens. One hour later, a man (whose name, age and address are currently not identified) called and asked him to buy such cell phone screens. Two parties had reached an agreement that the selling price of 15 screens of Samsung J320 cell phones was VND 4,500,000 and they would be delivered at the gateway of Quang Minh Industrial Zone at 16:00 PM on the same day.

About 20:30 PM, on April 17, 2017, Ms. Phan Thi Nhu H2 (born in 1987, residence:….., Me Linh district, Hanoi City) who is an employee of the company’s sales department cooperated with the security guard of Samsung Thai Nguyen Company in examining products before delivery and found that 15 cell phone screens were stolen. Thus, she asked the company's security force to check the company’s security system. By checking camera system, Mai Van H was found to steal the above-mentioned property.

On April 18, 2017, Elentec Vietnam Co., Ltd. notified the case in writing to the investigation authority affiliated to the Police Office of Me Linh district.

According to the property valuation report No. 20 dated April 25, 2017 provided by the valuation panel specializing in criminal procedures of Me Linh district, the value of 15 screens of Samsung J320 cell phones is VND 12,225,000 (twelve million two hundred twenty five thousand).

On May 04, 2017, Mr. Mai Van H (the father of Mai Van H) had voluntarily compensated for damage and remedied any consequences caused to Elentec Vietnam Co., Ltd. The representative of Elentec Vietnam Co., Ltd. had received the compensation and made no requests for civil liabilities but requested the court to consider mitigating the sentence imposed on Mai Van H.

Regarding 15 Samsung J320 cell phone screens, during the investigation, H stated that they were sold to an unknown man (whose name, age and address are currently not identified), so the stolen property cannot be found, and the investigation authority affiliated to Hanoi City Police Department decided to separate all documents concerning the above-mentioned person for further determination and verification.

According to the Indictment No. 309/CT-VKS-P2 dated September 26, 2017, the People’s Procuracy of Hanoi City prosecuted the defendant Mai Van H for the “Theft of property” crime in accordance with Clause 1 Article 138 of the Criminal Code.

At the trial, the defendant has expressed his cooperative attitude and admitted his crime as described in the indictment. He sincerely asked the Trial panel to consider the mitigation of the imposed sentence.

After the analysis on the nature of the crime, personal records and family background of the defendant, the representative of the People’s Procuracy exercising the right of prosecution at the trial still keeps his/her decision to prosecute the defendant Mai Van H for the “Theft of property” crime unchanged. He/she request the Trial panel to to impose a suspended imprisonment sentence of 09 – 12 months on the defendant Mai Van H in accordance with Clause 1 Article 138, Points b, h, p Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 46, Article 60 of the Criminal Code. The probation period is 18 – 24 months. The defendant should be supervised and educated by the government of his registered place of permanent residence during the probation period. Regarding civil compensation liability: The defendant had made compensation for damage, so the civil plaintiff has no requests for compensation anymore. Thus, the court shall not consider this matter. The cell phone which the defendant used to commit the crime shall be confiscated for transfer to state budget.

After examination and consideration of documents and evidences at the trial, and during the questioning and arguments at the trial,

 THE COURT JUDGES

Based on the contents of the case, documents in the case file which have been examined and argued at the trial, the Trial Panel finds that:

Because of personal greed, about 06:00 AM on April 16, 2017, Mai Van H had stolen 15 screens of Samsung J320-brand cell phone, code GH 97-18399B, worth VND 12,225,000 (twelve million two hundred twenty five thousand) from Elentec Vietnam Co., Ltd.

Finding that the crime committed by the defendant is serious, directly infringes the property ownership of Elentec Vietnam Co., Ltd. (a wholly foreign-owned company), and harms the public order of the capital area.

The above-mentioned acts of the defendant Mai Van H are considered to commit the “Theft of property” crime which is defined in Clause 1 Article 138 of the Criminal Code. The People's Procuracy of Hanoi City’s prosecution against the defendant is absolutely precise.

When deciding the sentencing for the defendant, the Trial panel finds: The defendant committed the crime by chance; he has good records; he committed a less serious crime and does not have prior criminal record; regarding the stolen property worth VND 12,225,000 (twelve million two hundred twenty five thousand), he and his family has compensated for damage and remedied the consequence caused to the Company; the Company has also requested the Court to consider the mitigation of criminal liability for the defendant; the defendant has a difficult family background; the defendant's father is suffering from disease and regularly granted benefits for disadvantaged background. The defendant has a clear residential address. With several mitigating factors specified in Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 46 of the Criminal Code, the sentencing of the defendant to a conditional imprisonment as per Article 60 of the Criminal Code is suitable for education and crime prevention purposes.

Regarding civil liabilities: The defendant has compensated for damage and remedied the consequences, Elentec Vietnam Co., Ltd. made no other requests. Thus, the court shall not consider this matter.

Regarding exhibits: 01 (one) Samsung T7-brand cell phone which the defendant used for committing the crime is confiscate for transfer to state budget.

The defendant must pay the first-instance criminal court fees as regulated.

For the said reasons,

THE COURT DECIDES

To declare that the defendant Mai Van H committed the “Theft of property” crime.

Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 138, Points b, h, p Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 46, Article 60 of the Criminal Code,

The defendant Mai Van H is sentenced to the imprisonment of 09 (nine) months but is given the suspended sentence. The probation period is 18 months commencing from the date of the first-instance judgment.

The defendant Mai Van Hien shall be supervised and educated by the People’s Committee of……………., Thanh Hoa province, during the probation period. If the person serving a suspended sentence changes his/her residence, the regulations enshrined in Clause 1 Article 69 - of the Law on enforcement of criminal judgments.

Regarding exhibits: Pursuant to Article 41 of the Criminal Code, Article 76 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

-01 (one) (used) Samsung T7-brand cell phone, using SIM cards No. 0979729456 and 0928851789, is confiscated for transfer to state budget.

The exhibit is currently kept at the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hanoi City according to the Exhibit delivery record dated October 25, 2017 made between the investigation authority affiliated to Hanoi City Police Department and the Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hanoi City.

Regarding compensation liability: Settled. The court makes no judgment on this matter.

Pursuant to Article 99, Article 231, and Article 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code; the Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 on the courts fees and charges, the defendant must pay VND 200,000 of the first-instance criminal court fees. 

The defendant shall have the rights to appeal against the judgment within 15 days from the date of judgment announcement. The aggrieved persons and persons having duties and interests absent from the trial shall have the rights to appeal against the judgment within 15 days from the date on which the judgment is served or publicly notified.