On December 20, 2011, the Investigation Police Agency of District 12 Police Department (\u201cIPA\u201d) issued Decision No. 27 to initiate a criminal investigation into the case of \u201cIntentional Infliction of Injury\u201d. On April 21, 2012, the IPA issued a decision to temporarily suspend the investigation due to the expiration of the investigation period without the arrest of the suspect. On March 15, 2021, the suspect, Le V, turned himself in to the District 12 Police Department, confessing to stabbing Do S with a knife. Subsequently, the IPA issued a decision to resume the investigation into the criminal case due to the surrender of the offender.<\/span><\/p>\n Following the issuance of the decision to resume the investigation, the client, Ms. Bich P, the biological sister of Le V, has requested TAPHALAW to provide legal advice and assign a lawyer to represent the defendant Le V during the investigation, prosecution, and trial stages.<\/span><\/p>\n Case Summary:<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Le V and Do S, being friends, met on September 3, 2011, and consumed alcohol at [Address]. During this gathering, a dispute arose between them. On the night of September 3, 2011, while Do S was asleep, Le V took a Thai knife and stabbed Do S in the abdomen, causing injuries and then fleeing the scene. A forensic medical examination report, number 1270 dated March 15, 2021, issued by the Ho Chi Minh City Forensic Center, concluded that: <\/span>“Do S suffered a penetrating abdominal wound that perforated the transverse colon in two places, a tear in the abdominal aorta, and underwent abdominal surgery to create a temporary colostomy, suture the aorta, and the temporary colostomy remains open. The degree of health impairment caused by the injury is 63%.”<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n On August 3, 2021, Do S filed a civil claim, demanding compensation from Le V in the amount of 166,878,342 \u0111\u1ed3ng. Le V and his family have paid the full amount of compensation.<\/span><\/p>\n On August 7, 2021, the investigating agency issued a conclusion of the criminal investigation, number 182\/KL\u0110T-\u0110TTH, proposing that Le V be prosecuted for the crime of “Intentionally causing injury” as defined in Article 104 of the 1999 Penal Code.<\/span><\/p>\n On August 26, 2021, the People’s Procuracy issued Indictment number 189\/CT-VKS, charging Le V with the crime of “Intentionally causing injury” as defined in Clause 3, Article 104 of the 1999 Penal Code, carrying a penalty of imprisonment from five to fifteen years.<\/span><\/p>\n On July 20, 2022, the People’s Court of District 12 issued Decision number 575\/2022\/Q\u0110XXST-HS, bringing the case to trial at the first instance.<\/span><\/p>\n Work Performed by the Attorney:<\/b><\/p>\n (1) <\/span>Advised on a defense strategy of mitigating criminal liability.<\/b> Given that the defendant, Le V, has admitted to the crime and his statements align with the documentary evidence in the case file, the attorney recommended focusing on mitigating circumstances to reduce the potential penalty.<\/span><\/p>\n (2) <\/span>Provided counsel on presenting mitigating evidence.<\/b> After assessing the defendant’s case and identifying several potential mitigating factors, the attorney advised the defendant’s family to provide documentary evidence demonstrating the defendant’s relative’s contributions to the revolution. Additionally, the attorney recommended submitting evidence of the defendant’s voluntary compensation for damages and restitution.<\/span><\/p>\n (3) <\/span>Presented a defense at trial.<\/b> At trial, Attorney Vo Dan Mach argued in defense of Le V, presenting legal arguments and analyzing the evidence to support the claims of mitigating circumstances. Specifically, the attorney argued that:<\/span><\/p>\n – <\/span>The defendant’s voluntary confession and remorse:<\/b> This is a mitigating factor under point p, clause 1 of Article 46 of the 1999 Penal Code.<\/span><\/p>\n – <\/span>The defendant’s voluntary reparation and restitution:<\/b> This is a mitigating factor under point b, clause 1 of Article 46 of the 1999 Penal Code.<\/span><\/p>\n – <\/span>The defendant’s voluntary surrender to the investigating agency:<\/b> This is a mitigating factor under clause 2 of Article 46 of the 1999 Penal Code.<\/span><\/p>\n – <\/span>The defendant’s grandmother’s contributions to the country:<\/b> This is a mitigating factor under clause 2 of Article 46 of the 1999 Penal Code.<\/span><\/p>\n Based on these arguments, the attorney requested that the court consider these mitigating factors when determining the sentence and impose a penalty lower than that sought by the prosecution.<\/span><\/p>\n Judgment Outcome:<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n On August 19, 2022, the People’s Court of District 12 conducted a first-instance trial and rendered its judgment. After the representative of the People’s Procuracy of District 12 proposed a sentence of 6 to 7 years’ imprisonment for the defendant, Le V, Attorney V\u00f5 \u0110an M\u1ea1ch presented arguments and emphasized the following plea: “The defendant has several mitigating circumstances and committed the crime at a very young age \u2013 just 18 years old. Therefore, the defense requests that the Court consider and apply a lower penalty than that proposed by the Procuratorate, specifically the lowest level of the penalty range: 5 years’ imprisonment.” The Court accepted the defense attorney’s entire argument and rendered the following judgment: “The defendant L\u00ea V is sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment,” which is the lowest level of the penalty range under Article 104, paragraph 3 of the 1999 Penal Code.<\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Basis for accepting the case and the client’s request: On December 20, 2011, the Investigation Police Agency of District 12 Police Department (\u201cIPA\u201d) issued Decision No. 27 to initiate a criminal investigation into the case of \u201cIntentional Infliction of Injury\u201d. On April 21, 2012, the IPA issued a decision to temporarily suspend the investigation due […]\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6147,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[98,92,114],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6120"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6120"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6120\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6170,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6120\/revisions\/6170"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6147"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6120"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/taphalaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}