Ms. Phuong Hang: 'I deeply regret not knowing the law'

Asked about the criminal behavior of herself and her accomplices, Ms. Phuong Hang said she had no opinion, but "extremely regrets not understanding the law and not knowing the Cyber Security Law".

On the morning of April 4, Ms. Hang, 53 years old, General Director of Dai Nam Joint Stock Company, wore a white shirt and heavy makeup, appearing quite comfortable when being escorted to the High Court. When she entered the courtroom, she laughed out loud and hugged the defendants, who were her former trusted employees. They were reminded by the police to maintain order and court rules.

In September last year, she was sentenced by the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court to 3 years in prison for abusing democratic freedoms to infringe on the interests of the state, the legitimate rights and interests of organizations and individuals. She accepted the sentence, did not appeal and carried out the sentence.

The jury said that Ms. Hang did not file an appeal, but the court still convened her to "can ask questions when necessary", to comprehensively review the case, related to the appeal of Ms. Hang's accomplices and related people.

Specifically, Mr. Dang Anh Quan (43 years old, former lecturer at Ho Chi Minh City University of Law) said that the sentence of 2 years and 6 months in prison imposed on him by the court was too harsh (at the first instance, the defendant said he did not commit a crime). ); The defendants Nguyen Thi Mai Nhi, Huynh Cong Tan, Le Thi Thu Ha (employees of Dai Nam Joint Stock Company) asked for a suspended sentence (the first instance sentence was 1 year and 6 months in prison).

As for former journalist Han Ni, Dinh Thi Lan asked the court of appeal to reconsider her prosecutorial status in the case. That is, they are the victims, not the people with related rights and obligations.

Dang Anh Quan: 'The purpose of the livestream is social criticism'

Called first, defendant Quan said he upheld the appeal and asked the appellate court to review the evidence and documents; Please reduce the penalty. According to the defendant, the details in the indictment and first instance verdict were different from his testimony and that of Ms. Hang. For example, the verdict stating that the defendant "shares the same opinion and will" with Ms. Hang is incorrect. "I just share the same view on social criticism, and the purpose of my livestream is social criticism," said the former law school lecturer.

Regarding the conclusion of the video examination, allegedly "insulting artist Hoai Linh", Mr. Quan explained: "The defendant only analyzed the article, but the clips submitted for examination were disordered and cut together from many different YouTube sources. The defendant provided evidence but it was not considered by the first instance court"...

Responding to questioning by the Procuracy later, Mr. Quan said he watched Ms. Hang's livestreams about charity from March to June, but did not participate until October. The purpose is to speak up from a legal perspective on the issues Ms. Hang mentioned.

To clarify Mr. Quan's accomplice behavior, the Procuracy representative reread the content of Ms. Hang's statements in a number of livestreams. Mr. Quan admitted that he "insulted others".

"Why didn't the defendant explain to Ms. Hang that this was a violation of the law?", the Procuracy asked. Hesitating for a moment, the former law school lecturer replied: "Miss Hang's nature is not like that. The defendant is a teacher and will use gradual methods to advise." However, Mr. Quan then said, "Even if Ms. Hang's family couldn't stop her, the defendant couldn't stop her either," and said he had advised Ms. Hang to file a complaint against those who had insulted her, instead of said on livestream.

The jury called Ms. Hang and asked, "Do you have an opinion about the actions in the case?". The CEO of Dai Nam Company did not answer the question directly, saying: "I am happiest right now standing in court without appealing. At the first instance I was not allowed to say...".

The chairman interrupted, repeated the question, and asked Ms. Hang to answer directly to the point. Ms. Hang said "there is no problem with the testimony of the other defendants", then said in a warm voice: "I am guilty but still have merit. The court is where all citizens put their trust. But the judge, lawyer, and everyone only focused on the crime and forgot all about my efforts. I have devoted myself to charity work."

Participating in the questioning by the lawyers later, Ms. Hang was once again asked about her relationship with Mr. Quan, and the entire process of offending others. This woman said that after watching YouTube, she saw that "teacher Quan" was attacked and felt sympathy even though she did not know him before. Inviting Quan to participate in the livestream was because he "understands the law"; The content discussed in the online sessions was not discussed in advance, mainly the same interests in singing, confiding... with each other.

Regarding the process of committing the crime, Ms. Hang reiterated the point of view presented at the first instance hearing, saying that she "became a criminal, even though she was previously a victim." "I deeply regret not understanding the law and not knowing the Cyber Security Law. If the police had reminded me about this law before, I would have stopped...", Ms. Hang said.

The Procuracy requested the court to reject the entire appeal

Expressing his opinion on the case, the representative of the Procuracy determined that Mr. Quan committed the act