Flight attendant requests increased sentence for Mercedes driver who caused accident
Disagreeing with the first instance court's sentence for the person who caused her accident, the flight attendant filed an appeal, requesting an increased penalty.
On December 21, Ms. Nguyen Thi Bich Huong - a flight attendant wasMercedes driverThe court has appealed against the defendant Nguyen Tran Hoang Phong (32 years old, residing in Go Vap district) in the serious injury accident; at the same time, requested to review the civil liability of the company that rented the car to Phong.
Previously, on December 16, Phu Nhuan People's Court (HCMC) sentenced Phong to 7 years and 6 months in prison for "Violating regulations on controlling road vehicles".
The court also ordered Phong to pay nearly 2 billion VND in compensation to the two victims, Mr. Le Manh Thuong (the deceased Grabbike driver) and Ms. Huong.
 |
| Ms. Huong requested the appellate court to clarify this issue. |
In the applicationappealMs. Huong believes that the penalty imposed by the People's Court of Phu Nhuan District is not appropriate and does not correspond to the behavior and consequences that the defendant has caused. Ms. Huong requests the appellate court to increase the penalty for the defendant.
Regarding the civil part, Ms. Huong said that the first instance court's decision to force the defendant to compensate her with more than 1.4 billion VND was appropriate. However, the first instance judgment only requiring the defendant Phong to compensate was incorrect.
Because, the delivery of the Mercedes car to the defendant to cause the accident was also related to Khang Gia Tourism and Transport Trading Company Limited (Khang Gia Company) and Fumita Company Limited.
Therefore, according to Ms. Huong, these two companies must have joint responsibility and, together with the defendant, must compensate for the losses of the two victims.
According to the appeal, the Mercedes Phong drove that caused the accident was rented by Mr. Vo Van Phuc to Fumita Company. However, there is not enough evidence to prove that Fumita Company legally rented the Mercedes to Khang Gia Company.
 |
| Defendant Nguyen Tran Hoang Phong |
On the other hand, in the case file, the car rental contract between Fumita Company and Khang Gia Company only bears the seal, without the signature of the representative of Fumita Company. Therefore, this contract has no legal value.
According to Ms. Huong, these two companies could not present invoices, legal documents, tax reports, etc. to prove that there was payment for the car rental transaction.
Is this contract signed “forged” after the accident occurred to prove that there was a car rental between Fumita Company and Khang Gia Company?
Ms. Huong requested the appellate court to clarify this issue.
