“Piphob”, a seller of the book “The Devil’s Discus”
Latest Update: 08/10/2018
Defendant
“Piphob”
Case Status
Judgment / End of trial
Case Started
2013
Complainant / Plaintiff
The public Prosecutor, Office of the Attorney General
Table of Content
"Piphob" sold copies of the book name "The Devil's Discus" during the yellow shirt's rally on 2 May 2006. He was charged with Article 112 for selling the books that allegedly contained the lese majeste content. "Piphob" denied all charges given that he took books to sell without knowing the content inside.
The first court believed that he did not acknowledge the content and dismissed the case. Later, The Court of Appeal changed the verdict and sentenced him to 2 years in prison.
Defendant Background
"Phiphob" was a peddler who sold stuffes in the market fair as well as in the political rally sites. At the time of occurence, he sold coppies of the book "the Devil's Discus" in one of the political rally of theYellow Shirt.
Offense
Article 112 Criminal Code
Allegation
"Piphob" sold 2 copies of the book "The Devil's Discus" which the content was considered to be an offence against the Article 112 of the Criminal Code and was banned from distribution in the Kingdom during the Yellow Shirt's Rally at Lumphini Park. He then charged with Article 112 of the Criminal Code.
Circumstance of Arrest
"Piphob" was arrested at 7 PM of the 2nd May 2006 while selling books and souvenirs in the Yellow Shirt's political rally at Lumphini Park.
Plainclothes policemen arrested the "Piphob" and brough him to Lumphini Police Station. He was granted on bail in the same day.
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
2491/2557
Court
Bangkok South Criminal Court
Additional Info
No information
Reference
No information
2 May 2006
"Piphob" was arrested while selling books in one of the Yellow Shirt's political rally at Lumphini Park.
There were two books that caused his arrest. The first was Samesky Magazine (Fa Diew Kan) the issue on Monarchy Institution and Thai Society. The second was the Devil's Discus.
However, the police only charged him for selling the Devil's Discus.
22 May 2013
The public prosecutor set the schedule to filed the charge against the defendant before the court.
However, the defendant's lawyer request the public prosecutor to postpone the submission of the statement of accusation because the defendant could not gather enough security to bail himself out.
The public prosecutor set the new schedule on 27 June 2013.
27 June 2013
The defendant's lawyer request the public prosecutor to postpone the schedule once again because the defendant could not gather enough security to bail himself out.
The public prosecutor set the new schedule on 31 July 2013.
31 July 2013
The defendant's lawyer request the public prosecutor to postpone the schedule once again because the defendant could not gather enough security to bail himself out.
The public prosecutor set the new schedule on 27 August 2013.
27 August 2013
"Piphob" accompanied by his lawyer meet with the public prosecutor in the morning before went to the court at 10.45 AM. After the case was submitted to the court, he was brough to the temporary detention room under the court building while his lawyer was submitting the bail application.
Officers from the Rights and Liberties Protection Department came to meet the defendant's lawyer along with the cash for bail in the sum of 300,000 Bath.
However, the document from the Rights and Liberties Protection Department is not completely clear. The court asked the lawyer to apply for bail in the next day. "Piphob" was sent to Bangkok Remand Prison while waiting for the court's order regarding the temporary release.
28 August 2013
The court granted "Piphob" on bail. He was released from the Bangkok Remand Prison in the same day at 8.30 PM. The court also set the schedule for the preliminary examination on 7 October 2013.
7 October 2013
The court set the schedule for the preliminary examination. "Piphob" denied the charges given that he only sold the copies of the books for someone without knowing the content and he has never read the Devil's Discuss before.
The court asked the defendant's lawyer to accept testimonies of the witnesses regarding the interpretation of the content of the books that were charged.
The defendant's lawyer denied and insisted to call for witness examination. Givien that the charged messages were parts of the book. In order to prove whether the interpretation of the witnesses for the prosecution were correct or not there is a need to consider from content of the whole book. The book only mentioned about theories without insisting which one is the fact therefore it was not fall under the article 112 of the Criminal Code.
Initialy, the court did not want the defendant's lawyer to fight the case in such a way. Given that the Constitution mentioned that The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated.
Moreover, exception according to article 329 of the Criminal Code regarding the expression of opinion in a good faith was also inapplicable with the offence under article 112 of the Criminal Code.
However, the defendant's lawyer insistsed the rights to fight the case in such a way because these witness examinations might be also used in the higher court.
The public prosecutor submitted the list of 7 witnesses for the prosecution. The defendant submitted the list of 4 witnesses for the defendant. The court set the schedule for the witness examinations from 11 to 13 February 2014.
As for the allocation of time. The first two day allocated for the examination of witnesses for the prosecution while the last day allocated for the examination witnesses for the defendants. The court announced that the witnessexaminations will be conduct behind the close door.
The defendant's lawyer submitted the letter to call for justice before the public prosecutor. Given that the defendant was a peddler who had no intention to committed the crime because he has never read the Devil's Discuss before. The content of the book therefore out of his knowledge.
11 February 2014
The first day of examination of witnesses for the prosecution,
prior to its commencement, the Judge explains that the examination shall be conducted behind the close-door and therefore those not concerned cannot be present.
Thus, in the courtroom, there were just three prosecutors, two assistant prosecutors, three defense lawyers and prosecution witnesses.
Pol. Maj. Gen. Pansak Sasana-anand, former intelligence police officer (Special Branch), testified that while the crime took place, he was Superintendent of General Staff Division 4, Special Branch, and was in charge of lèse majesté cases and was the complainant in this case.
He was informed by police officials from the Lumpini Police Station that the defendant was arrested with the book “Kong Chak Pi Sat” (Thai translation of The Devil's Discus) and another book.
The Committee to Review Lèse Majesté Cases have met and decided the case was a violation of Article 112. Thus, the police official was assigned to lodge a complaint with the Lumpini Police Station and to ask the Press competent officer to declare the book a banned book.
Pol. Maj. Gen. Pansak admitted to not having read the whole volume of the book as he was not part of the review committee. He was simply assigned to report the case to the police. He admits also that during a trial, consideration cannot be made simply on extracted paragraphs, but the whole volume has to be deliberated.
Pol. Maj. Gen. Pansak also said that if the bookseller does not get to read the book before, he cannot be held as guilty.
Pol. Col. Chottiwat Luangwilai, who conducted the seizure of the books, testified that on 2 May 2006, while serving as Police Inspector at Lumpini Police Station, he was in plain clothe patrolling among the demonstrators of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) in Lumpini Park.
He ran into a 2.5×1 meter stall of books for sale along with protesting gears, hats and wristbands.
The book stall attracted a number of passerbies and featured many books. At first, he spotted “Fah Deaw Kan” magazine on top of other books and was aware that the publication was banned. It was placed by the book “Kong Chak Pi Sat”.
Browsing through it, he found the book was about the death of King Rama VIII and found another book about politics during the time of the Suranaree Lady. As he found the book, “Kong Chak Pi Sat”, was about the monarchy, he decided to buy it for 500 baht per copy.
During the same day, he made the arrest of the defendant on charges related to the sale of “Fah Deaw Kan” against the 1941 Press Act.
The books sold by the defendant were not stacked up, but laid out separately. He bought only two books, and could not remember what the other book was about and not even its gist. He was also not aware of the detail of the case against “Fah Deaw Kan”.
Since the two prosecution witnesses including Prof Emeritus Thongthong Chandrangsu and Mr. Siraphab Laolapha, could not make it to the Court.
The prosecution asked the defendant to sign to acknowledge the facts present in the statements made by the two witnesses as they had testified to the police already.
But the defense lawyer rejected the instruction. Thus, the Court adjourned and asked for next prosecution witness examination to take place on the following day.
12 February 2014
The Second Day of the examination of witnesses for the prosecution.
Mr. Sathian Wipromma, a witness, testified that when the crime was committed, he was a lecturer at the Faculty of Social Science, Maha Mongkut Ratchawittayalai, a Buddhist monks’ university and was a member of the People’s Network for the Nation, Religion and Monarchy.
Mr. Sathian states that he was asked by an inquiry official of the Lumpini Police Station to give comment as an expert on Buddhism. He got to review only six phrases extracted from the book “Kong Chak Pi Sat”, but did not get to read the whole volume.
He has never read this book before, but has heard among Buddhist fellows that the book’s content is controversial and one should not get to read it.
As for the extracts concerning the death of King Rama VIII, he thinks if people of the new generation get to read them, it might cause misunderstanding to them.
Personally, he finds it not proper to have the book distributed as readers have different levels of maturity.
While reading the extracts at the Lumpini Police Station, he finds the sentences are derived from opinions or assumptions of the author and not factual.
The author does mention that some theory is not provable and the ‘accident’ theory is really not provable. It is even written that the brother cannot be held liable.
In order to determine if a book can be a cause of legal action on lese majeste or not, the whole volume has to be considered.
He has no idea what is the conclusion of the book since he does not get to read the whole volume. Personally, he finds the matter not proper to be assumed.
After reading it, he does not feel convinced. He has heard that HM the King used to mention in 2005 that if anyone is imprisoned by Article 112, it will trouble him.
After the examination of the witness was completed, both the prosecutors and defense lawyers agreed to accept the testimony made by the chief of the inquiry team, but the inquiry officials shall be brought in for questions.
Mr. Sathian, a witness for today, has already contacted Prof Emeritus Thongthong Chandrangsu and Mr. Siraphab, and both witnesses agreed to give evidence on the following day.
Thus, the Court scheduled the examination of witnesses for the prosecution to take place on 12 February including the inquiry officials, and the examination of defense witnesses, scheduled on 13 February, has to be put off.
13 February 2014
The third day of the examination of witnesses for the prosecution.
Mr. Siraphab Laolapha, a witness, states that his name has been changed to Ekkapob. While the crime occurred, he was a member of the People’s Network for the Nation, Religion and King, as an expert.
Around late 2006, he was asked by police from the Lumpini Police Station to testify as a witness and was shown a copy of “Kong Chak Pi Sat”. He got to see a copy of 17 pages and brought them back home to read.
He found the book was about the death of King Rama VIII and the six statements he got to read sufficed the initiation of a legal action as per Article 112. In fact, the book should not have been distributed, or even written.
The country has suffered a great deal from this reckless way of imagining. Readers have different levels of maturity. It is possible that people with minimal conscience tend to believe (the book).
Even if they do not believe, they may spread the word and it will cause severe damage. In sum, this book is an insult to the current HM the King.
Mr. Siraphab states also that he has never seen the book “Kong Chak Pi Sat” before. He was only given a copy of it extracts to read by the inquiry officials and has no idea who the author is.
In the document he got to read, it mentions that several people were involved with the regicide including Mr. Pridi (Banomyong), Field Marshall Pibulsongkhram, etc. It even mentions that the accidence scenario can be ruled out.
Personally, he is not convinced by the author’s assumption. He also thinks in order to determine if a book is an insult to the King or not, it does not have to be read by the whole volume. If it contains sentences that can be considered offensive, then the book is an insult to the King.
Mr. Siraphab states further that he himself is also a book seller. Most of the book sellers, 80-90% of them, do not get to read the books they sell. He himself manages to read at least the table of content of each book.
In order to gauge what a book is about, one can look at the cover. On the cover of this book, it mentions that it is about the death of King Rama VIII. At least the seller must have seen the cover before, but whether or not he gets to read the book, the witness has no idea.
Whether or not selling the book can initiate a legal action, it has to be reviewed on a case by case basis. If a seller has no idea what the book he sells is about, it would be too much a stretch to complain against him.
After the witness’s examination was completed, the Court consulted with the prosecutors and the defendant's lawyer to fixed the new examination date on 25 February.
The Court also cautioned the defense lawyer against examining Mr. Sulak Sivaraksa as a witness. And if the lawyer happen to ask irrelevant issues, they shall be prevented from doing so by the Court.
Prof Emeritus Thongthong Chandrangsu, a witness, states that while the crime took place, he was Deputy Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Justice. He was asked by an inquiry official at the Lumpini Police Station to comment on the statements extracted from “Kong Chak Pi Sat”. He was not given the whole volume of the book to read, but just a copy of the statements.
As far as he can recall the document was concerned with death of King Rama VIII, and several of the statements can initiate a legal action as they are an insult to King Rama IX and violate Article 112.
Prof Emeritus Thongthong further states that he has been keen on studying Thailand’s history, but has never got to read “Kong Chak Pi Sat” before, though he has heard about it. The author of the book is a foreigner and he has no idea what is a conclusion of the book.
The book features various theories and the author suggests different scenarios and even claims either Mr. Pridi or Field Marshall Pibulsongkhram was involved. In the last paragraph of the document shown to him by the inquiry official, the author seems to suggest that the King might have committed a suicide.
In other libel suits, it is impossible to review just a few statements from a book. It is too careless to make a conclusion that way. If one gets to read the whole volume, it is possible that one may attain a different conclusion.
Despite that, given the existing statements, they can be deemed an insult to the King. Since the book is 800 pages, he does not think any Thai person would get to read them all. Though it is possible that the first part of the book may be deemed offensive to the King, though the latter part tends to negate it, it will not help since most readers would not get to read until the final page. Even though it contains conflicting arguments, but the conclusion of the book should feature the general characteristic of the book.
He is not convinced by the six extracted statements since he has read from many other sources. And he tends to believe in the verdict of the Supreme Court. Though the author uses the term theory, but readers may arrive at different conclusions. If they happen to have read from different other sources, they may attain different understandings, too.
Prof Emeritus Thongthong states that he is aware that there are several publications about the death of King Rama VIII and they are legally published. And he is aware that the defendant in this case is just a book seller, and if he is not aware of the content of the book, he should not be found guilty.
Prof Emeritus Thongthong states that he has known Mr. Sulak Sivaraksa as a Siamese intellectual who likes to criticize the monarchy. Some like him and some do not.
He is aware that the current monarch used to mention that he can be subjected to criticisms. It would trouble him if any legal action is initiated against a person as per the violation of Article 112.
Prof Emeritus Thongthong states that he used to share his opinion during a public panel discussion that Article 112 features too severe maximum penalty; it is not proportionate to the offense and too extreme.
Pol. Lt. Col. Santi Misiri, an inquiry official, states that while the crime took place, he was an inquiry official at the Lumbhini Police Station. The book “Kong Chak Pi Sat” was taken from a book stall owned by the defendant. And the case was referred to the Special Branch for review.
He was later informed that it had prima-facie case as an insult of the King, thus, he instructed for the pressing of charges against people concerned, and Pol Col Pansak was asked to report the case.
Pol Lt Col Santi states that he brought the statements extracted from the book accused by the Special Branch as an insult to the King to the attention of witnesses in this case. There is a team assigned to carry out the investigation. And he has made suggestion to the Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police to issue a ban on its distribution.
The inquiry team has met and concluded that the book is actionable as per Article 112 and the author, the translator and the defendant as a distributor, shall be held liable. The defendant pleaded not guilty during the investigation. But as it is known that both the author and the translator have died, he does not start any legal action against them.
When the arrest was made against the defendant, the book “Kong Chak Pi Sat” was still not banned as per the 1941 Press Act. After he submitted the book to the Special Branch, he has received back just a copy of its 17 pages, but the book.
He has sought opinions from experts on the six statements extracted from the book. He is aware that in a normal process of libel suit, it is necessary that the whole paragraph or chapter has to be reviewed. But the extracted statements are relevant to the case, and he does not use the rest of the content which he finds irrelevant.
Pol Lt Col Santi admits that he cannot recall how the defendant got the book in the first place. And if the defendant did not get to read it, he should not be found guilty. The reason he decides to initiate a legal action in this case is the cover of the book mentions that it is an analysis about the death of King Rama VIII and since it is relevant to the monarchy, it can be assumed that the defendant must have known the content of the book.
25 February 2014
The examination of witnesses for the defendant
"Piphob" gives evidence as his own witness that he is now 64 years old and has been selling small merchandise at weekend markets since 1994. Apart from selling things at the market, he also sells at events or activities to commemorate important dates including the 14 October, New Year. He has his three meter long clothe laid down and among his merchandise are used CDs, used books, clothes, hats, scar, fans, etc.
On that day around 18.00-19.00, a man whose name was unknown to him, but he has seen him one or two times, has brought to him two copies of “Kong Chak Pi Sat” and asked him to sell it at 500 baht per copy. The defendant would get a cut for 300 baht per copy. He has never seen the book before and has no idea what it was all about. He did not bother to flip and read the content of the book.
As a vendor, he has often been asked by other people to sell things. If he manages to sell them, the owner of the things would come to collect the money at 24.00. If not, he would be asked to keep them for further sale a couple of days more. Most of the people who brought things for him to sell are trust worthy. Though sometimes, he accepts to sell things brought to him by someone unfamiliar as well.
On the day of arrest, the defendant was selling with his wife, but his wife was not arrested. Prior to the arrest, he managed to sell a copy of “Kong Chak Pi Sat”, and he only learned later that the buyer was a police official. After he was arrested, he could still see that the book was sold by other people.
Right after the completion of the examination of the defendant, the Court carried on for 20 minutes for the examination of defense witness no.2.
Sulak Sivaraksa, defense witness no.2, states that he is now 80 years old and used to read the book The Devil's Discus in English since when it was first published. After reading it, he wrote a review which was published in the Social Science Review Magazine, June 1964. Apart from the English version, he has also read the Thai translation as well.
As for the book The Devil's Discus, Sulak is aware that the author is a Dutch-British from South Africa. The content is about the death of King Rama VIII. In sum, the author wants to prove that King Rama VIII committed a suicide. Various theories suggested in the book were derived from the thinking of the author himself.
As for the prosecution regarding the violation of Article 112, Sulak states that he was once reported to police in a similar manner to this case. In that case, he was charged for publishing the book “Seeds of Peace” containing various articles including one about the regicide. But the prosecutor decided not to prosecute him since he was simply a distributor, not the author.
Prior to this, Sulak was accused by Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon, for violating Article 112. In that case, the Criminal Court ruled that in order to determine if an insult against the King is committed or not, the facts cannot be viewed individually, but the whole intent of putting out the facts has to be considered. Thus, he was acquitted.
In 2006, Sulak was reported to the police by Mr. Sathian Promma (prosecution witness in this case) for violating Article 112 related to “Fah Deaw Kan” magazine. But the police decided not to pursue any action against him.
In addition, Sulak states that he once spoke at a public event at the Parliament and mentioned that if the Members of Parliaments truly have moral courage, they should have Article 112 amended since it troubles the King.
Sulak states that for those who have never studied about the regicide, when they get to read this book, they might or might not believe it. He cannot answer for them. As for his relation to the defendant, he said he has never known the defendant before.
The examination of witness for the defendant
Suthipong Suwanlaeid testifies that he is a street musician. He plays in a public events like in a political demonstration. He usually saw the defendant sell goods in the events and activities.
The defendant usually sell t-shirts, fans, caps, souvenirs and books. The defendant laid a clothe on the street as his shop.
Suthipong also saw the defendant sell other goods during other festival, for example, he sold water guns during the Songkran festival at Khaosarn Road.
Shuthipong said that he saw the defendant for many years but they did not talk to each other closely.
17 April 2014
Bangkok South Criminal Court read the verdict dismiss the case.
The Court sees that the defendant is just a seller of a book which contain defamation content. The defendant did not write or translate the book by himself. The defendant will have an intention only when he knows the fact that such book contain all 6 illegal content according to the accusation.
The defendant denied the charge all the process. In any criminal case the plaintiff has duty to prove without reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The plaintiff's witnesses and evidences are not enough to prove that the defendant is guilty as charge, therefore, the court must give the benefit of doubt to the defendant according to Criminal Procedure Code Section 227.
22 April 2015
The Court of Appeal changed the verdict of the Court of the First Instance and found the defendant guilty as charge. The court sentenced the defendant under lese majeste law to 3 years in prison and reduced by one third to 2 years. He was granted bail ywo days later to fight the case in Supreme Court.
15 September 2016
Bangkok South Criminal Court scheduled to read the vercdict from Supreme Court. The verdict from Supreme Court affirmed the verdict from the Court of Appeal sentencing the defendant t0 3 years. The Supreme Court saw that the defendant has experince selling books for a long time then it believed that he might know the content of the book. "Piphob" was then taken to serve his penalty in Bangkok Remand Prison.
12 September 2016
There was a report that "Piphob" has been released from prison after serving his sentence.
Verdict
The Verdict of the Court of the First Instance
Room no. 406, the South Bangkok Criminal Court, can be summarized as follows;
It has to be adjudicated if the six statements described in the complaint should be deemed offensive or defamatory to the King or not. The Court has found that if the author had intended to prove that His Majesty King Ananda Mahidol had committed a suicide, he could have made it by giving the supporting evidence without having to refer to the His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. By implicating him in his book, the author had brought an impairment to His Majesty’s reputation.
And since the author had made a reference to His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, it was obvious that he had intended to cause the impairment to his
reputation exposing him to hatred and scorn.
As to the argument of the defendant that the book has to be read in its entire volume in order that one can tell if it is offensive to the monarchy or not, the Court had found the six statements as described in the plaint can be read and understood without having to read the book in in its entirety. Even though, the author concluded by saying that His Majesty King Ananda Mahidol had taken his own life, it did not help to absolve the criminality of the statements and the defense evidence has been found not strong enough to rebuke the prosecution evidence.
Another issue to adjudicate is whether the defendant had intended to commit the offence or not. The Court has found that the defendant was a seller of “Kong Chak Pi Sat” (Thai translation of The Devil's Discus) which contains statements offensive to the monarchy. Since the defendant was neither the author of the book nor the translator of the book from a foreign language into Thai, in order to prove that the defendant had committed a lèse majesté offence, he must have been aware of the statements offensive to the monarchy as described in the complaint and featured in the book he sold.
According to the evidence from the arresting police, it could not confirm or convince the Court that the defendant had been aware of the existence of the statements deemed lèse majesté as alleged. Other prosecution witnesses had also failed to confirm that fact. The adduction of the prosecution had also failed to describe as to which behaviors of the defendant could indicate that he had been aware of the fact before.
Since it is not clear that the defendant had been aware of the lèse majesté statements as described in the complaint, that the defendant had put “Kong Chak Pi Sat” on display for sale could not prove that he had intended to commit an offensive act against the monarchy.
In this case, the defendant had been pleading not guilty all along and in a criminal suit, the prosecution is obliged to present clear evidences to prove that the defendant had committed the offence as indicted. Since the prosecution evidence had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed the offence as indicted, for the benefit of the doubt, the defendant shall be acquitted per the Criminal Procedure Code’s Section 227, Second Paragraph.
Since “Kong Chak Pi Sat” contains lèse majesté statements, it shall be forfeited by the Court.
The Verdict of the Court of Appeal
After reviewing the case, the Court of Appeal has found that it needs to be adjudicated if the defendant had sold “Kong Chak Pi Sat” without awareness of the lèse majesté statements in the book or not.
The Court has found even though the prosecution had failed to present the witnesses who could confirm that the defendant had been aware of the lèse majesté statements in the book, but judging from the behavior of the defendant as adducted by the prosecution, it appeared that the defendant had been earning his living by selling miscellaneous items and old books since 1994 with veteran experience in the trade and the excellent ability to read and write in Thai. In addition, in his answer during the cross-examination, the defendant had admitted to having seen “Kong Chak Pi Sat” before and had seen it while it was being sold by other persons.
From the cover of the book, on the top of the cover reads “An analysis of the death of Nai Luang Ananda on 9 June 1946” with a picture of King Rama VIII in the middle of the cover. The content deals directly with the death of King Rama VIII and contains statements which are offensive to the incumbent monarch.
The defendant is a vendor selling his items in weekend markets and events. When the crime took place, his stall where he sold his products was located inside the Lumphini Park where there was a political gathering, not a normal place for trade.
Apart from “Kong Chak Pi Sat” implicated in this case, the defendant had admitted to having sold “Fah Deaw Kan”, which was a banned book concerning politics and the monarchy as well. Judging from the circumstances, the Court of Appeal has found the defendant had sold “Kong Chak Pi Sat” knowing in advance that the book contained statements offensive to the monarchy.
That the defendant claimed the copies “Kong Chak Pi Sat” he had sold belonged to someone else who simply asked him to sell them and he did not get to read the book. It was a claim by the defendant himself without supporting evidence. In addition, the defendant claimed that he was only asked to sell two copies of “Kong Chak Pi Sat”, one of which was sold to Pol Col Chottiwat Luangwilai, and another to another buyer and therefore, he had no more copies left with him. But the defendant managed to bring a copy of “Kong Chak Pi Sat” to give as an exhibit no.L1 to the Court of the Firt Instance. It shows that he must still have some copies of the book with himself. Therefore, the claim that the book did not belong to him, but others who had asked him to sell them and that he was not aware of the content of the book, carries no weight and could not rebuke the prosecution evidence.
The Court of Appeal has found that the defendant sold “Kong Chak Pi Sat” knowing in advance that the book contains statements offensive to the monarchy. Even though when the crime took place, the Bangkok Printing Authority had yet to issue an order to ban the book, but the fact could not exonerate the defendant, since the fact was not part of the element of the crime per the said offence. Therefore, the act of the defendant is deemed offensive as indicted. That the Trial Court had dismissed the case, the Court of Appeal does not agree and is convinced by the appeal motion.
The Court of Appeal overturned the verdict and found the defendant guilty per the Penal Code’s Article 112 and sentenced him to three years. Given the evidence of the defendant was useful for the trial process, his sentence shall be reduced by one third per the Penal Code’s Article 78 to two years of imprisonment and the book shall be forfeited.