On the morning of September 8, the Ho Chi Minh City People's Court held an appeal trial for defendant Nguyen Xuan Huong Trang (31 years old, also known as Trang Nemo) and three accomplices, Pham Quyen Quy, Nguyen Ngoc Khuong, and Phan Hoang Nam, all on charges of "disturbing public order".

All four defendants were released on bail during the investigation, prosecution and trial.

Previously, on June 16, District 1 People's Court (HCMC) sentenced defendant Trang Nemo and two defendants Pham Quyen Quy and Nguyen Ngoc Khuong to 9 months in prison; defendant Phan Hoang Nam to 1 year in prison.

After the above verdict, Trang Nemo and the two defendants Pham Quyen Quy and Nguyen Ngoc Khuong appealed for a suspended sentence. Defendant Phan Hoang Nam appealed for a reduced sentence.

At the same time, the person involved in the case, Ms. Pham Le Khanh, also appealed, requesting the appellate court to consider and prosecute Trang Nemo and her accomplices for the additional act of intentionally causing injury, in order to thoroughly resolve the case.

On the morning of September 8, Trang Nemo and the two defendants Pham Quyen Quy and Nguyen Ngoc Khuong were all present, except defendant Phan Hoang Nam who was absent without reason.

At the same time, three defense attorneys for the defendants were also absent without reason. Trang Nemo requested to postpone the trial to invite lawyers. However, the panel of judges said that it was unusual for these lawyers to be from the same office but absent at the same time, intentionally delaying the trial. The absence of the lawyers was not a case of force majeure, so the panel of judges continued to hear the case.

The panel of judges also assessed that defendant Phan Hoang Nam's absence without reason was a self-deprivation of his right to appeal.

During the questioning session, after the presiding judge announced the first instance verdict, defendant Trang presented an appeal for a suspended sentence because the 9-month prison sentence was too harsh.

"The defendant has a young child and has created jobs for many people; the defendant's uncle was a soldier who died in the resistance war, his grandmother was a heroic Vietnamese mother... Standing here is a lesson for the defendant" - defendant Trang stated.

The representative of the Ho Chi Minh City People's Procuracy (VKS) stated the opinion of the indictment, the defendants' behavior is dangerous to society, violating social order and security. Based on the document of the People's Committee of Nguyen Cu Trinh Ward, District 1, the disturbance had a negative impact on security and order; when the incident occurred, people used their phones to record the incident, causing it to spread very quickly.

According to the representative of the People's Procuracy, the fact that the defendants disturbed public order has left a bad impression on the locality; especially District 1, where many tourists come to visit, so it needs to be dealt with strictly. Therefore, there is no basis for the defendants to receive a suspended sentence or a fine.

According to the People's Procuracy, the court of first instance had given a satisfactory and appropriate sentence in accordance with the nature and severity of the defendant's crime. At the appeal hearing, the defendant did not provide any new details.

Considering the appeal of Ms. Pham Thi Le Khanh, the People's Procuracy found that, based on the documents, evidence, and records in the case, the appeal content had been clarified by the District 1 prosecution agency. Regarding Ms. Khanh's 3% injury, it was not determined who caused this injury, whether inside or outside the store... so the above act did not constitute the crime of intentional infliction of injury.

According to the People's Procuracy, District 1 People's Court has tried the right person for the right crime. Therefore, the People's Court requests that the panel of judges not accept the appeal of the defendant and related parties and uphold the first instance judgment.