Martial arts master unintentionally killed people and controversy surrounding the crime

The trial was opened to consider the martial artist’s appeal to reduce the punishment and the victim’s family’s request to cancel the first-instance judgment.

The victim’s family said that the sentence for the accused was light and that the martial artist’s behavior had enough elements to constitute the crime of murder.

According to the first-instance judgment, in 2019, Vinh accepted to help families in looking after and managing drug addicts in the 3rd floor room of his family in Yen Nguu village, Tam Hiep commune, Thanh Tri, Ha Ha. Interior.

Through acquaintance relationships, on July 4, 2019, Mr. and Mrs. Nguyen Van K. (in Hoai Duc) asked the defendant to detox for his son, Nguyen Van D. (SN 1997).

The parties agree, Mr. and Mrs. K. will bring the child to the defendant’s house for a period of at least 3 months so that Mr. Vinh can directly look after and manage.

Medicine for D. Drink was brought by Mr. K. and his wife, the master did not use any other medicine to treat D. According to the agreement, Mr. K. and his wife have to pay 15 million VND/month, quarterly.

On July 6, 2019, Mr. K. and his wife brought their son to defendant Vinh’s house. Then D. was brought up by the master on the 3rd floor for monitoring and management as agreed.

At the defendant’s house, D. lived with two other men, both of whom were brought in by their families to be looked after as was the case with D.

Sudden death

The first-instance judgment said that, since arriving, D. eat and live normally, with no signs of health. On the evening of 7/7/2019, Mr. began to show signs of fatigue, vomiting, chest tightness, difficulty breathing, unable to eat or drink and asked Mr. Vinh to call a doctor to examine and give fluids.

Given that D. showed signs of opposition, so the defendant hit D’s head with his hands and feet. on Wall. After that, Mr. Vinh used a chain with one leg D., the other end relaxed to still be able to walk.

By the next morning, D. continued to have symptoms of fatigue, vomiting, chest tightness, shortness of breath and defecation. Mr. Vinh knew but did not give Mr. go to the doctor but continue to self-monitor and take care at home.

At about 3:45 p.m. on the same day, after taking a bath, D. showed signs of twitching limbs, talking nonsense, so Mr. Vinh called a taxi to take D. to the emergency room. On the way, D. severe symptoms and subsequent death.

The summary of the medical record of Thanh Tri General Hospital shows: “When entering the hospital, patient D. had cardiac arrest, out-of-hospital pulmonary arrest. The patient died due to failure to regenerate circulation and breathing.

The conclusion of the assessment stated: “The area between the apex is swollen with hematoma, the skin is not bruised. The corresponding perfusion organization has a hematoma. Normal hard meninges. Cerebral edema, congestion…” The cause of death was determined to be “asphyxiation due to regurgitation of food”.

Around 19:30 on July 8, 2019, Van Dien town police received the news, so they came to examine the scene.

At the CQDDT, Mr. Vinh admitted that he was a martial artist, did not have a license to practice drug addiction treatment, only took care of patients with his own experience.

On November 19, 2021, the People’s Court of Thanh Tri district sentenced Vinh to 20 months in prison for the crime of “inadvertently causing death”.

At the appellate court session, the defendant admitted to beating D. a few, and bruises can be caused by scratches.

The lawyer defending the legitimate rights and interests of the representative of the victim’s family made the point that Mr. Vinh’s behavior showed signs of the crime of “murder”, and proposed to cancel the first-instance judgment.

The representative of the Procuracy also proposed to cancel the first-instance judgment for re-investigation.

After considering, the appellate court said that the first-instance court’s accusation that Mr. Vinh committed the crime of “inadvertently causing death” was correct.

From the testimony of the person involved and the case file, there was no basis to show that the defendant committed the crime of “Murder”, so the trial panel rejected the appeal of the victim’s family. The court accepted part of the appeal of the victim’s family about the punishment.

Considering the defendant’s appeal, the appellate court found that there was no basis to consider mitigating the defendant’s punishment, so it rejected Mr. Vinh’s appeal.

Accordingly, the appellate court ordered the defendant to receive a sentence of 36 months in prison (an increase of 16 months compared to the first-instance sentence).

T.Velvet