Precedent No. 64/2023/AL on sentencing and "organized" aggravating circumstances in the crime of 'Kidnapping to appropriate property' in Vietnam

Source of Precedent:

Cassation Decision No. 15/2022/HS-GĐT dated October 4, 2022 of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court on the criminal case "Kidnapping to appropriate property" against defendant Tran Van N and his accomplices.

Location of Precedent content:

Paragraphs 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of “Court Opinions”.

Overview of the content of the Precedent:

- Precedent situation 1:

The defendant planned and prepared criminal tools and means to kidnap the victim in order to appropriate property, but did not appropriate the property.

- Legal solution 1:

In this case, the defendant must be prosecuted for criminal liability for the crime of "Kidnapping to appropriate property". The court must base its decision on the value of the property the defendant intends to appropriate to determine the penalty.

- Precedent situation 2:

Among the defendants, there is a defendant who is the leader and initiator and directly invites other defendants to participate in the arrest of the victim in order to appropriate property, plan, and assign tasks to other defendants; There was a close collusion between the defendants, and they performed consistent actions under the direction of the leading defendant.

- Legal solution 2:

In this case, the defendants must be prosecuted for criminal liability for the crime of "Kidnapping to appropriate property" with the aggravating factor "organized".
stipulated in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code 2015 (amended in 2017).

Legal provisions related to Precedent:

Penal Code 2015 (amended in 2017)

Keywords of Precedent:

“Crime of kidnapping for the purpose of appropriating property”; “Framing the punishment”; "Organizing".

CONTENTS OF THE CASE:

Around August 2018, Tran Van N lent Mr. Luu Manh T 150,000,000 VND, but when asked for debt many times, Mr. T did not pay and fled to Ho Chi Minh City, so N came up with the idea of tricking Mr. T into Hanoi to arrest him for debt collection. N borrowed Nguyen Dieu L's Zalo account and impersonated L to make friends, talk, and ask Mr. T to go out in district A, Vinh Phuc province, on the afternoon of January 15, 2019.

On January 12, 2019, N invited L, Nguyen Quang T1, Nguyen Van D, and Phan Van Q to participate in arresting Mr. T to collect debt; L, T1, D and Q agree. N prepares 03 retractable sticks (each stick is about 60cm long), 01 pepper spray can, 01 electric lighter, and 01 number 8 handcuffs.

At about 2:30 p.m. on January 15, 2019, N told D to rent a taxi from Mr. Trinh Anh T2 to take N, L, D, Q, and T1 to Noi Bai airport. In the car, N discussed how to arrest Mr. T with L, D, Q, and T1, so Mr. T2 knew clearly that the above subjects came to the airport to arrest Mr. T to collect debt. In the car, L received a phone call from Mr. T informing him that he would arrive at Noi Bai airport at 7:00 p.m. the same day.

At about 3:00 p.m. on January 15, 2019, T2 transported N, L, D, Q, and T1 to Noi Bai airport and rented 02 rooms near the airport. Here, N and D told T2 about the plan to arrest Mr. T, specifically: L would hire another taxi to go first to pick up Mr. T, and T2 would wait for everyone to follow; When L and Mr. T's taxi stopped, T2 parked behind so everyone could run up and arrest Mr. T. T2 agreed.

At about 7:20 p.m. on January 15, 2019, L picked up Mr. T and hired a taxi to go in the direction of district A, Vinh Phuc province. T2 carries N, D, and Q; T1 follows. In the car, N gave D and T1 each a stick and gave Q a can of pepper spray. After traveling about 15 km, the taxi carrying L and Mr. T stopped, with Mr. T2's car stopping behind. N, Q, D, and T1 got out of the car and ran to Mr. T's taxi. T1 took L to T2's taxi. N opened the left back door, D opened the right back door, and Q opened the front door of Mr. T's taxi passenger seat and sprayed pepper spray in Mr. T's face. N and D used sticks to beat Mr. T, and N and Q used their hands to punch Mr. T in the face until Mr. T asked to pay the debt, then N, Q, and D stopped. N and D held Mr. T's hands. N gave handcuff number 8 to D to lock one end on Mr. T's right hand and the other end under the driver's seat. D took Mr. T's hoodie and asked him to drive towards Bac Ninh. Arriving in Bac Ninh, N told T1 to take T and keep him at T1's scrap warehouse for one day. N got into T1's car and L (driven by Mr. T2) went first; The taxi carrying Q, D, and Mr. T followed. Upon arrival, D told the taxi driver to go straight into the warehouse. T2's car was parked outside the door while N and L went inside the warehouse. About 5 minutes later, T2 drove forward, and T1 closed the warehouse door. Q got out of the car with his backpack, but Mr. T was still locked in the taxi. N took and deleted all messages and call histories between Mr. T and L on Mr. T's phone. Q checked Mr. T's wallet and kept the wallet, ATM card, and ID card, and Q returned the amount of 2,700,000 VND to Mr. T. After that, N, D, and Q took Mr. T out of the car and into the restroom. Q used handcuffs number 8 to lock Mr. T's hands, used rope to tie Mr. T's hands behind him, used tape to wrap his hands, and gagged Mr. T's mouth. N and D took a taxi to N's house; N took a piece of chain about 1.5 meters long, then went to buy food and returned to the warehouse. N paid and drove the taxi home. L, N, T1, D, Q, and Mr. T sit and eat at the warehouse. While eating, Q told Mr. T to pay N, and he would be released. After eating, Q and D moved Mr. T to the right corner of the warehouse; Using tape to tie Mr. T's left leg and arm, the right hand was still locked with a number 8 handcuff tied with a chain to an iron pole in the warehouse so that Mr. T could not hide or commit suicide. At about 24:00 on January 15, 2019, N, T1, and L returned while D and Q stayed at the warehouse to look after Mr. T.

At noon on January 16, 2019, N, T1, D, Q, and L gathered at the warehouse. N gave the phone to force Mr. N used his hand to punch Mr. T's right eye, gave him the phone, and forced him to call home, asking his family to transfer 150,000,000 VND to Mr. T's account. Mr. T called his ex-wife, Ms. Dam Thi Phuong L1, told her that he was arrested for owing money, and asked Ms. L1 to go to his house and tell Mr. T's parents to borrow money and transfer it to Mr. T's account before he could be released. Because she was divorced, Ms. L1 did not follow Mr. T's instructions. Mr. T called his biological aunt, Ms. Luu Thi L2, said he owed money, was arrested, beaten, and tied up, and told Ms. L2 to send a message to Mr. T's parents to borrow money to save him. Mrs. L2 came to the house to inform him, but Mr. T's parents had no money to deposit. Mr. T called his friend Hoang Thi L3, saying he owed money and was being held in Bac Ninh. He asked Ms. L3 to transfer money so he could be released.

At about 2:00 p.m. on January 16, 2019, Mr. T's family did not transfer money, so Q used a blowtorch to hit Mr. T. N took a fire extinguisher and threw it at Mr. T, using his foot to kick Mr. T. The same evening, L hired a taxi to return to Hanoi; N borrowed a car with D; and T took him to Q's room. Q used a chain to tie T to the foot of the bed. D and T1 returned.

Q kept Mr. T from January 17, 2019 to the morning of January 18, 2019. At Q's motel room, Mr. T asked N to take a photo of Mr. T being beaten and tied up and send it to Ms. Hoang Thi L3 and call Ms. Luu Thi H (Mr. T's cousin) so Mr. T's family believes and transfers money to Mr. T's account to repay N's debt. N told Mr. T to tell Ms. H that if he did not transfer money to pay the debt, N would cut off Mr. T's hand, so Ms. H agreed to take care of the ransom and pay Mr. T's debt.

At about 01:00 on January 19, 2019, T2 took Q, D, and Mr. T to the cemetery of village X, commune Y, district P. Q and D threatened to burn Mr. T. After that, T2 drove Q, D, and Mr. T to the karaoke bar in village A, Y1 commune, P district. Q took Mr. At about 8:00 a.m. on January 19, 2019, D came to look after Mr. T on behalf of Q. D made Mr. T call home to request a money transfer and checked Mr. T's account and saw 38,928,049 VND, of which: the available money in the account is 23,928,049 VND; the money transferred by Ms. Luu Thi H at 10:12 a.m. on January 19, 2019 is 10,000,000 VND; and at 10:30 a.m. on January 19, 2019 is 5,000,000 VND.

At about 11 a.m. on January 19, 2019, D took Mr. T to the police headquarters to surrender. After that, T2, N, T1, and D went to confess. On February 19, 2019, Q surrendered. On February 21, 2019, L surrendered.

In First Instance Criminal Judgment No. 49/2019/HSST dated October 8, 2019, the People's Court of Bac Ninh province applied Point e, Clause 2, Article 169; Points b, s, Clause 1, Clause 2, Article 51 of the Penal Code, penalties:

- Tran Van N spent 42 months in prison for kidnapping to appropriate property.

- Phan Van Q spent 36 months in prison for kidnapping to appropriate property.

- Nguyen Van D spent 36 months in prison for kidnapping to appropriate property.

- Nguyen Dieu L spent 30 months in prison but was suspended, with a probationary period of 60 months from the date of the first instance verdict for kidnapping to appropriate property.

- Nguyen Quang T1 spent 30 months in prison but was suspended, with a probationary period of 60 months from the date of the first-instance verdict for kidnapping to appropriate property.

- Trinh Anh T2: 30 months in prison but suspended sentence; probation period of 60 months from the date of the first instance verdict for kidnapping to appropriate property.

On October 21, 2019, Tran Van N, Phan Van Q, and Nguyen Van D appealed to reconsider the crime, reduce the penalty, and give the defendants a suspended sentence.

In Criminal Appeal Judgment No. 535/2020/HSPT dated October 30, 2020, the High People's Court in Hanoi accepted the defendants' appeal; Apply Clause 1, Article 169, Points b, s, Clause 1, Clause 2, Article 51, punishing Tran Van N and Phan Van Q with 24 months in prison, Nguyen Van D with 24 months in prison with suspended sentences; Nguyen Dieu L, Nguyen Quang T1, and Trinh Anh T2 with 18 months in prison with suspended sentences for kidnapping to appropriate property.

At the cassation trial, the representative of the Supreme People's Procuracy requested the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court to accept the protest of the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People's Procuracy; annul the Criminal Appeal Judgment No. 535/2020/HSPT dated October 30, 2020 of the High People's Court in Hanoi and the First Instance Criminal Judgment No. 49/2019/HSST dated October 8, 2019 of the People's Court of Bac Ninh province regarding the criminal liability of Tran Van N, Phan Van Q, Nguyen Van D, Nguyen Quang T1, Nguyen Dieu L and Trinh Anh T2 for a retrial in the direction of applying Points a and e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code to all defendants, increasing penalties and not allowing suspended sentences against the defendants who were the masterminds, leaders and active practitioners.

COURT'S OPINION:

[1] Regarding the crime:

[2] During the investigation process and at the first instance and appellate courts, the defendants confessed to all the crimes. The defendants' confessions were consistent with the victim's testimony, witnesses and other documents and evidence in the case file, have sufficient basis to determine:

[3] Around August 2018, Mr. Luu Manh T borrowed 150,000,000 VND from Tran Van N. Due to collecting debt many times, Mr. T did not pay and quit his job and fled to Ho Chi Minh City, so N thought of a way to arrest Mr. T to collect the debt. After discussion, defendants Phan Van Q, Nguyen Van D, Nguyen Dieu L, Nguyen Quang T1, and Trinh Anh T2 agreed to participate. The defendants used rope to tie, beat, and capture Mr. T from about 7:20 p.m. on January 15, 2019 to about 11:00 a.m. on January 19, 2019 to exert pressure. The purpose is to force Mr. T to notify his family to transfer 150,000,000 VND to Mr. T's account to repay N's debt.

[4] The above acts of defendants N, Q, D, L, T1, and T2 have enough elements to constitute the crime of kidnapping to appropriate property as prescribed in Article 169 of the Penal Code. The Court of First Instance and Appeal's conviction of the defendants for this crime is well-founded and in accordance with the law.

[5] Regarding punishment:

[6] Regarding the aggravating circumstances at Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

[7] In this case, the defendants arrested, tied up, locked up, and beat Mr. Luu Manh T. In order to pressure T to call his family and relatives to transfer the amount of 150,000,000 VND that Mr. T borrowed from Tran Van N to Mr. Thus, the purpose of the series of actions of arresting, tying, locking, and beating Mr. T that the defendants carried out was to appropriate the amount of 150,000,000 VND from Mr. T, which has just been transferred to Mr. T's account two times with a total amount of 15,000,000 VND, without changing the original purpose of appropriation of the defendants, which was 150,000,000 VND.

[8] Therefore, the defendants must bear criminal liability in the amount of 150,000,000 VND, which was intended to be appropriated by the defendants from the beginning of the arrest of Mr. Luu Manh T. The defendants must be tried for the crime of "Kidnapping for the purpose of appropriating property" with the penalty framing details "appropriation of property worth from 50,000,000 VND to under 200,000,000 VND" specified in point e Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

[9] Regarding the Court of Appeal's argument that the defendants in this case are only prosecuted for criminal liability according to Clause 1, Article 169 of the Penal Code for the reason that the defendants have not appropriated the amount of 150,000,000 VND from Mr. T's family, it is seen that the crime of "Kidnapping to appropriate property" is a formal crime. Therefore, the time the crime was completed was when the defendants arrested Mr. Luu Manh T. and put pressure on him so that Mr. T's family must transfer the amount of 150,000,000 VND as requested by the defendants to Mr. T's account so that Mr. T can withdraw and pay N's debt, then Mr. T will be released. The completion of the crime does not depend on whether the defendants have appropriated this amount of 150,000,000 VND or not? The circumstance of "appropriation of property worth from 50,000,000 VND to under 200,000,000 VND" is an aggravating circumstance in Clause 1, Article 169 of the Penal Code, so it still follows the principle of formality of Clause 1. The "appropriated amount" to be framed here must still be considered according to the defendants' purpose of appropriation when carrying out the act of arresting Mr. T. The Court of Appeal held that the phrase "to appropriate property" in Clause 1 and the phrase "appropriated money" in Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code must be understood differently; The phrase "in order to appropriate property" in Clause 1 is understood to mean that the defendants only have the purpose of appropriating the property of the kidnapped person's family; whether or not it was actually appropriated does not affect the composition of the crime; The phrase "appropriated money" in Clause 2 is understood to mean that this amount of money must actually be appropriated to constitute a crime in the aggravated frame, which is unfounded.

In Decision No. 29/QD-VKSTC dated August 31, 2021, the Director of the Supreme People's Procuracy appealed against Criminal Appeal Judgment No. 535/2020/HSPT dated October 30, 2020 of the High People's Court in Hanoi regarding the criminal liability of Tran Van N, Phan Van Q, Nguyen Van D, Nguyen Quang T1, Nguyen Dieu L, and Trinh Anh T2. Recommend that the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court conduct a cassation trial to annul the above-mentioned Criminal Appeal Judgment and First Instance Criminal Judgment No. 49/2019/HSST dated October 8, 2019 of the People's Court of Bac Ninh Province regarding the criminal liability of Tran Van N, Phan Van Q, Nguyen Van D, Nguyen Quang T1, Nguyen Dieu L, and Trinh Anh T2 for re-trial in the direction of applying Points a and e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code for all defendants, increase penalties, and no longer allow suspended sentences for defendants who are masterminds, leaders, and active practitioners.

[10] The Supreme People's Procuracy appealed to cassation that it was necessary to try the defendants with the aggravating circumstance of "appropriation of property worth from 50,000,000 VND to under 200,000,000 VND" stipulated in Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code is well-founded, lawful, and should be accepted.

[11] Regarding the aggravating circumstances at Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code:

[12] In this case, defendant Tran Van N is the initiator; directly invited other defendants (Q, D, L, T1, T2) to participate in the arrest of Mr. Luu Manh T in order to appropriate the amount of 150,000,000 VND that Mr. T borrowed from N; directly prepared tools and means to commit crimes such as No. 8 handcuffs, ropes, pepper spray, etc.; he was the one who planned and assigned tasks to the other defendants, including using defendant L's zalo to impersonate to make friends, inviting Mr. T from Ho Chi Minh City to Hanoi, choosing a place to pick up Mr. T (Noi Bai airport), assigned L to pick up Mr. T, chose a place and time for the taxi carrying L and Mr. Choose a location to lock up Mr. T, assign someone to look after Mr. T... therefore, N is the organizer, leader, and mastermind. The other defendants were practitioners and actively assisted N in the plan to arrest Mr. T in order to pressure Mr. T's family to transfer money at N's request to Mr. T's account. From there, we appropriate this amount of money and offset the debt that Mr. T previously borrowed from N. There was a close collusion between N and the other defendants; the other defendants all acted consistently according to N's direction. The defendants' act of arresting, tying up, locking up, and beating Mr. T to appropriate the amount of 150,000,000 VND from Mr. Therefore, the defendants' actions show signs of "organized" crime as prescribed in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

[13] The Court of First Instance only tried the defendants with the aggravating circumstance "appropriation of property worth from 50,000,000 VND to under 200,000,000 VND" in Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, which does not consider the "organized" aggravating circumstances as analyzed above is flawed.

[14] The Supreme People's Procuracy's appeal to cassation requested the application of additional aggravating circumstances "organized" as specified in the provisions in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, which are well-founded and should be accepted.

[15] Regarding punishment:

[16] Role of the defendants in the case:

[17] Defendant Tran Van N was the initiator and played the role of mastermind and leader.

[18] Defendants Phan Van Q and Nguyen Van D, when invited by defendant Tran Van N to participate in arresting Mr. Luu Manh T to collect debt, actively helped N, Q and D. There are also acts of arresting, tying up, beating, and threatening the victim, so they play a second role after N.

[19] Defendants Nguyen Quang T1 and Trinh Anh T2 have the third role in the case. Although defendant Trinh Anh T2 was not discussed in advance, at the motel near Noi Bai airport, when N discussed arresting Mr. T, T2 agreed and drove according to N's direction.

[20] Defendant Nguyen Dieu L had the act of lending his Zalo account to defendant Tran Van N to make friends and made an appointment with Mr. T from Ho Chi Minh City to Hanoi; participated in picking up and taking Mr. Luu Manh T to the rendezvous point according to N's plan. However, when N's group arrested Mr. T, L left for Hanoi and did not participate anymore. Therefore, L plays the lowest role in the case.

[21] Regarding the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the defendants

[22] Aggravating circumstances: the defendants have no aggravating circumstances.

[23] Extenuating circumstances: the defendants all surrendered, honestly confessed their crimes, and repented; the defendants compensated the victim with 20,000,000 VND; and the victim applied for a reduced sentence for all defendants. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to the mitigating circumstances specified in Points b and s, Clause 1 and Clause 2, Article 51 of the Penal Code.

[24] Defendants L, Q, T1, and T2 have parents, grandparents, grandmothers, and mothers who were awarded resistance medals, so Clause 2, Article 51 of the Penal Code are additionally applied.

[25] At the appeal stage, defendant Nguyen Van D had additional mitigating circumstances: he was instrumental in denouncing 02 cases of robbery and property theft recorded by the Police of District P, Bac Ninh Province. Defendant Tran Van N presented additional documents showing that he was worshiping martyrs and that his grandparents were awarded many orders and medals; The defendant also provided information for the investigation agency to arrest illegal drug dealers. The defendant was confirmed by local authorities to have voluntarily and actively participated in the movement against the COVID-19 epidemic.

[26] Regarding personal character: defendants N, Q, D, and L all have good personal character. Although defendants T1 and T2 were tried, their criminal records were automatically erased long before they committed the crime in this case.

[27] Regarding penalty decisions:

[28] From the above analysis, the Council of Judges finds that:

[29] The criminal acts of defendants N, Q, D, L, T1, and T2 in this case must be considered for criminal liability according to Points a and e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

[30] The Court of First Instance tried the defendants with 01 aggravating circumstance at Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code. Applying Article 54 of the Penal Code to punish the defendants below the lowest penalty frame in Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code (from 5 to 12 years in prison) is not serious.

[31] The Court of Appeal's decision to amend the first instance verdict, try the defendants according to Clause 1, Article 169 of the Penal Code, and reduce the penalties for all defendants is unfounded.

[32] Because after the first instance trial, the defendants appealed for a reduction in sentence, the appeal cannot be re-tried in the direction of increasing the penalty, which is disadvantageous for the defendants. Therefore, it is necessary to accept the appeal of the Supreme People's Procuracy and annul the appeal judgment and first instance judgment for a retrial, to comprehensively and objectively consider the dangerous nature of the defendants' criminal acts, and then, based on the position and role of each defendant, decide on the appropriate penalty level. fit.

For the above reasons,

DECISION:

Pursuant to Article 382, Clause 3, Article 388, Article 391, and Article 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015.

1. Accept the Decision on cassation appeal No. 29/QD-VKSTC dated August 31, 2021, of the Director of the Supreme People's Procuracy.

2. Cancel Criminal Appeal Judgment No. 535/2020/HSPT dated October 30, 2020 of the High People's Court in Hanoi and First Instance Criminal Judgment No. 49/2019/HSST dated October 8, 2019 of the People's Court of Bac Ninh province regarding the criminal liability of Tran Van N, Phan Van Q, Nguyen Van D, Nguyen Quang T1, Nguyen Dieu L, and Trinh Anh T2.

3. Transfer the case file to the People's Court of Bac Ninh Province for re-trial in accordance with the provisions of law.

CONTENTS OF PRECEDENT

[7] In this case, the defendants arrested, tied up, locked up, and beat Mr. Luu Manh T. In order to pressure T to call his family and relatives to transfer the amount of 150,000,000 VND that Mr. T borrowed from Tran Van N to Mr. Thus, the purpose of the series of actions of arresting, tying, locking, and beating Mr. T that the defendants carried out was to appropriate the amount of 150,000,000 VND from Mr. T, which has just been transferred to Mr. T's account two times with a total amount of 15,000,000 VND, without changing the original purpose of appropriation of the defendants, which was 150,000,000 VND.

[8] Therefore, the defendants must bear criminal liability in the amount of 150,000,000 VND, which was intended to be appropriated by the defendants from the beginning of the arrest of Mr. Luu Manh T. The defendants must be tried for the crime of "Kidnapping for the purpose of appropriating property" with the penalty framing details "appropriation of property worth from 50,000,000 VND to under 200,000,000 VND" specified in point e Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

[12] In this case, defendant Tran Van N is the initiator; directly invited other defendants (Q, D, L, T1, T2) to participate in the arrest of Mr. Luu Manh T in order to appropriate the amount of 150,000,000 VND that Mr. T borrowed from N; directly prepared tools and means to commit crimes such as No. 8 handcuffs, ropes, pepper spray, etc.; he was the one who planned and assigned tasks to the other defendants, including using defendant L's zalo to impersonate to make friends, inviting Mr. T from Ho Chi Minh City to Hanoi, choosing a place to pick up Mr. T (Noi Bai airport), assigned L to pick up Mr. T, chose a place and time for the taxi carrying L and Mr. Choose a location to lock up Mr. T, assign someone to look after Mr. T... therefore, N is the organizer, leader, and mastermind. The other defendants were practitioners and actively assisted N in the plan to arrest Mr. T in order to pressure Mr. T's family to transfer money at N's request to Mr. T's account. From there, we appropriate this amount of money and offset the debt that Mr. T previously borrowed from N. There was a close collusion between N and the other defendants; the other defendants all acted consistently according to N's direction. The defendants' act of arresting, tying up, locking up, and beating Mr. T to appropriate the amount of 150,000,000 VND from Mr. Therefore, the defendants' actions show signs of "organized" crime as prescribed in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code.

[13] The Court of First Instance only tried the defendants with the aggravating circumstance "appropriation of property worth from 50,000,000 VND to under 200,000,000 VND" in Point e, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, which does not consider the "organized" aggravating circumstances as analyzed above is flawed.

[14] The Supreme People's Procuracy's appeal to cassation requested the application of additional aggravating circumstances "organized" as specified in the provisions in Point a, Clause 2, Article 169 of the Penal Code, which are well-founded and should be accepted.

>> CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE IN VIETNAMESE