The Hanoi People's Court on 31/3 rejected the appeal of Nguyen Van Thien, who sought a reduced sentence and a suspended sentence in a public disturbance case. Thien had been sentenced to 2 years in prison by Regional People's Court 3, while his accomplice, Nguyen Long Vu, received 6 months. The court found that Thien had not been truthful during the investigation and trial, showing no remorse, and only admitting guilt when denial was no longer possible.

The appeal hearing was conducted online from Detention Center No. 2 of the Hanoi Police. During this session, Thien pleaded guilty, admitted his actions, and requested leniency. However, the Judicial Council determined that Thien presented no new mitigating circumstances, and existing factors were insufficient to reduce the sentence below the established framework. The appellate court concluded that "the first-instance verdict was sufficiently lenient and in accordance with the law," justifying its rejection of Thien's appeal.

Defendants Thien (left) and Vu at the court hearing on 30/1. Photo: Danh Lam.

The case stems from an incident at approximately 14h30 on 17/9/2025, at a coffee shop in an urban area in Hanoi. Thien was smoking and was reminded by Minh, a 29-year-old staff member and the owner's son, to stop. After the third reminder, Thien raised his hand and pointed upwards, signaling.

Immediately following Thien's signal, Vu, 24, stood up, walked to the cashier counter, and punched Minh twice in the face, knocking him to the floor. Thien again raised his hand, signaling, and shouted, "Stop, stop, stop." Vu ceased his actions, returned to his seat, and the group then departed. The coffee shop's security camera recorded the entire incident. The owner posted the footage on social media before reporting it to the police.

At the first-instance hearing, Vu admitted his actions, testifying that he assaulted Minh after the "CEO" instructed him to "go over there and slap that employee a few times." Thien, however, denied this, claiming he only raised his hand to intervene when he saw a conflict. Thien also claimed the video from the shop contained "many inaccuracies," despite the Judicial Council publicly played the footage in court. He maintained that "it was a minor incident that was escalated by netizens, causing public confusion."

The Procuracy refuted Thien's claims, stating that the behavior under review was public disturbance, not related to "clickbait" or the spread of information on social media. They highlighted that the shop had a no-smoking sign, and the employee had reminded Thien three times. "Even if there was frustration, using inappropriate language and resorting to physical violence against another person is unacceptable," the Procuracy representative stated. They emphasized that despite the victim's injury rate being 0%, the assault itself was real.

Hai Thu