The RESOLUTION guidelines apply some of the provisions in the General section of the Penal Code of 1999 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the COUNCIL of JUDGES of the SUPREME PEOPLE'S COURT pursuant to article 20 and article 21 courts Organization Act of 1992 (amended and supplemented on 28-12-1993 and on 28-10-1995);
To apply uniform rules in the General Part of the criminal law are National Assembly of Socialist Republic of Vietnam passed on 21-12-1999 and came into force on 1 July 2000;
DECISIONS: a guide to applying some of the provisions in the General Part of the criminal law are National Assembly of Socialist Republic of Vietnam passed on 21-12-1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of 1999) as follows: 1. the preparation of an offence (article 17).
a. Article 17 paragraph 2 of the Penal Code 1999 stipulates: "The preparation of a very serious crime or a particularly serious crime shall bear criminal responsibility for the crime to make". Although the criminal code in 1999 not specified who prepared a very serious crime or a particularly serious crime by new intentional criminal responsible for the crime to make, but need to understand is only for those crimes by deliberately had new phases of preparing a crime because only in the case of willful sin, who plan to make new criminal searches, compose tools, media or create other conditions to make guilty. At the same time as defined in paragraph 3 article 8 of the Penal Code in 1999, the very serious crime is criminals have the highest level of penalty from on 7 years in prison to 15 years in prison and crime especially serious crime is to have the highest level of penalty from 15 years in prison , from the middle of the fuselage or the death penalty; so, just who would prepare a criminal offense by intentionally that have the highest level of the penalty for the offence is seven years in prison, from the central prison or the death penalty, the person preparing the new offences to the criminal responsibility. This regulation applies from the day the criminal to be announced (4-1-2000); so, for those who are prosecuted on the behavior of preparing commit a crime was taken from before the 4th of January 2000 that the crime has the highest level of the penalty prescribed by the Criminal Code of 1999 is 7 years imprisonment, then based on the c category 3 resolution No. 32/1999/QH10 on 21-12-1999 by the National Assembly on the enforcement of the criminal code and directions in circular No. 01/2000/TTLT-TANDTC-VKSNDTC-BTP-BCA on 12-6-2000 of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of public security "guidelines for implementing section 3 of resolution No. 32/1999/QH10 on 21-12-1999 and Parliament's resolution No. 229/2000/NQ-UBTVQH10 on 28-1-2000 of the Commission of the National Assembly" to the decision to suspend the case.
Note that the trial was only a person preparing a crime when there is full proof that the crime base that they prepare to perform a criminal purpose and is very serious offences or particularly severe crimes. In the case study profile if there is sufficient proof that the base was made a crime, but not have enough bases to determine the crimes that they are about to make is less serious crimes, serious crimes, very serious crimes or exceptionally serious crime , then the decision to pay records for the Procurator requested additional investigation make clear is that very serious crimes or exceptionally serious crime or not. In the case of the Prosecutor not to Institute additional investigation or through additional investigation still did not clarify the should remain, the indictment must open trial according to the General procedure; If at the trial also could not identify the criminals that they are about to make is the crime, the application of paragraph 2 Article 89 criminal law in 1988, article 17 of the Penal Code in 1999 declared the accused does not have to bear criminal liability regarding preparation of the crime for which they were prosecuted.
For example, Nair A compose tools, means to make the crime of stealing property. If the base is full proof that Nair A preparation made of property crimes in paragraph 3 or paragraph 4 to article 138 of the Penal Code in 1999, declared Nguyen Van A guilty of stealing property (preparation of a crime). In the case just prove that Nair A compose tools, means to make the crime of theft in a place with a sense of what the property then stole property, cannot be determined in 138 of the Criminal Code of 1999, point 2 Article 89 shall apply The law of criminal procedure, 1988 , Article 17 of the Penal Code in 1999 declared Nair A is not subject to criminal liability regarding preparation of property crime that they have been prosecuted.
b. when deciding punishment in case of preparation of offence, in addition to applying points, account, the law stipulates that crime, the need to apply article 17 paragraphs 1 and 2 and Article 52 of the Penal Code of 1999. For example, Le Van H preparation of guilty of murder in paragraph 1 to article 93 of the Penal Code of 1999, they must declare in the verdict was: "Le Van H guilty of murder (preparation of a crime); application of Article 93 paragraph 1, article 17, paragraphs 1 and 2 Article 52 of the Penal Code in 1999 sanctions Le Van H... ".
2. A crime not yet reached (article 18).
a. According to the provisions of article 18 of the Penal Code of 1999, the crime has not yet reached the case has started to deliberately make the crimes, but does not perform to the same as the external causes of the crime. Other than the preparation of a crime, the offender has not reached to the criminal responsibility of crime not yet reached (any crime would do intentionally). However, note that only when there is sufficient proof that the base of the crime for which the offender does not perform to the same as the causes of their subjective except in terms of the respective laws and regulations of that crime, then apply new account, the corresponding laws. In case of unknown criminals that they make no particular heavy increases in any of the respective laws and regulations of that crime, then apply the lightest of laws clause respectively.
Example 1: A criminal who has a professional nature are breaking the key to your Dream car theft II then arrested or a person who has not had the money, the money are stealing property worth 100 million then. These people will be judging according to item 2 Article 138 of the Penal Code of 1999 (c or e).
Example 2: A person who has been sentenced to six months in prison on charges of "appropriating property scam" is not yet clear which area project to lock into the homes of other people with the conscious property, stole the property, but not get what the property was located and arrested. In the case prescribed in clause 1 Article 138 of the Penal Code of 1999, the behavior of this person has full of signs constituting crimes, but does not identify the specific heavy increases in of article 138 of the Penal Code of 1999; Therefore, only the base hearing them according to paragraph 1 Article 138 of the Penal Code of 1999.

b-in the case identified the violations of which the person is made does not meet the because the causes except their subjective does not have adequate signs constitute crimes or in no case be determined violations that they had not reached implementation in full of the signs constituting crimes or not , shall apply paragraph 2 Article 89 criminal law in 1988, article 18 of the Penal Code in 1999 declared the accused not guilty that they were prosecuted.
Example 1: Nair B (not yet sanctioned the Administration regarding appropriation of property, not convicted of the crime of appropriating the property or was convicted of the crime of appropriating property, but has been deleted projects) are a scam other people to misappropriate assets worth 300 thousand copper was discovered and arrested. In this case, as specified in paragraph 1 to article 139 of the Penal Code of 1999, then the violation of Nair B does not constitute the crime; Therefore, the applied item 2 Article 89 criminal law in 1988, article 18 of the Penal Code in 1999 declared Nair B not guilty "appropriating property scam" where they were prosecuted.
Example 2: C (not yet sanctioned the Administration regarding appropriation of property, not yet convicted of crimes seized property or convicted of the crime of appropriating property, but has been deleted projects) broke the lock and the homes of other people with the conscious property, stole property , not get what the property was located and arrested, in this case under the provisions of paragraph 1 to article 138 of the Penal Code in 1999, could not identify the violation of C has full of signs constituting crimes or not yet (for can not determine the value of the property being seized); Therefore, the applied item 2 Article 89 criminal law in 1988, article 18 of the Penal Code in 1999 declared the C Ceiling not guilty "theft" that they were prosecuted.
c-When sentencing in the criminal case has not yet reached, in addition to applying points, account, the law stipulates that crime, the need to apply Article 18 and paragraphs 1 and 3 Article 52 of the Penal Code of 1999.
For example the M Ceiling is dangerous it is breaking the key to your Dream car theft II worth 25 million, were discovered and arrested. In this case must be declared in the judgment is: "Chen M guilty of stealing property (not yet reached); application of point c of paragraph 2 Article 138, article 18, paragraphs 1 and 3 Article 52 of the Penal Code in 1999 sanctions the ceiling M. .. ".
3. Prison term (article 33) Article 25 of the criminal code in 1985 not specified the time of custody was deducted from the Executive term of imprisonment sentence, now Article 33 of the Penal Code of 1999 was added to the regulations: "the custody, detention was deducted from the Executive term of punishment prison"; so, when deciding the punishment to note except on custody time limits time penalty of jail for convicted persons.
The custody time minus the time of detention on the Executive term penalty are as follows: a in the case of offenders sentenced to prison at which time the custody, detention time for them constantly with each other and the offender continues to be detention until trial in the judgment, it should clearly be "the Executive term penalty adjective on custody is..." (specify day ... month ... year ...).
b-in the case of offenders sentenced to prison which previously detained, then freed, but after some time again arrested detention and continued detention until trial, the verdict in the note is: "the Executive term imprisonment sentence from the date of arrest of detention (stating the day ... month ... year ...) and except for the time of custody is... " (specify time detained).
c-in the case of offenders sentenced to prison which previously detained, then freed and was at foreign until trial, the verdict in the note is: "the Executive term penalty adjective away arrested execution date and time deduction of custody is..." (specify time detained).
d-in the case of offenders sentenced to prison custody, which previously suffered detention (custody time, temporary time period may be continuous with each other, can not continuous with each other), but when the trial being in Foreign Affairs, then in judgment note is: "the Executive term penalty adjective away arrested execution date and time deduction of custody detention time is... " (plus the time of custody, detention time together).
When combined many of the judgment as well as when forced to accept criminal but is not entitled to probation, in addition to proper implementation of the provisions of article 51, article 60 of the Penal Code of 1999, noting that the accused be detained in custody, the crime and was tried before that or not; If detained, the detention was deducted from the Executive term of punishment or jail; If that has not been deducted from the Executive term penalty you must subtract the time the custody, detention earlier in the Executive term penalty for them.
4. Probation (article 38).
According to the regulation on additional penalties in article 92 and in the laws on crime and punishment in the criminal code in 1999, only in the case that Article 92 or law provisions on the crime and the punishment of the Criminal Code of 1999 have additional penalty provisions are statutes , then apply this additional penalty type.
5. The extenuating penal responsibility (article 46).
a-Article 46 of the Penal Code of 1999 have dropped some extenuating circumstances that Article 38 of the Penal Code prescribed in 1985; specifically the following details:-guilty because other people were physically dominant, or the other side (the DD clause 1 Article 38 of the Penal Code, 1985).
-Guilty due to professionalism non inferior (point 1 article 38 clause g of the criminal code in 1985).
However, pursuant to paragraph 2 article 7 of the Penal Code in 1999 and guided in circular No. 02/2000/TTLT-TANDTC-VKSNDTC-BTP-BCA on 5-7-2000 of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of public security's "Guide to the implementation of article 7 of the Penal Code of 1999 and section 2 of resolution No. 32/1999/QH10 on 21-12-1999 of Parliament" (hereinafter referred to as Circular No. 02/2000/TTLT), you can still apply the aforementioned extenuating circumstances for the offender before 0:00 on 1 July 2000, after the time of this new trial, if they have extenuating circumstances.
b-article 46 of the Penal Code in 1999 additional rules a new extenuating circumstances; in particular, the following details:-the offender voluntarily remedial (point b paragraph 1);
-The offender has established the sin (point r paragraph 1);
-The offender has outstanding achievements in production, fight, study or work (point s paragraph 1).

Although the aforementioned extenuating circumstances are the criminal code in 1999 additional rules, but in practice, the courts have applied this details when sentencing according to the guidelines in resolution No. 01-89/HDTP on 19-4-1989 by the Council of judges of the Supreme People's Court "additional guidelines the application of some provisions of the Criminal Code". Today, however, the Criminal Code of 1999 has additional provisions in the paragraph 1 Article 46 of the Penal Code of 1999; Therefore, pursuant to paragraph 3 article 7 of the Penal Code in 1999 and guided in circular No. 02/2000/TTLT, as for who made the offence before 0:00 on 1 July 2000, after this new time trial and if they have extenuating circumstances of this , shall apply the corresponding points of paragraph 1 to article 46 of the Penal Code of 1999 for them.
To apply the points r, s paragraph 1 to article 46 of the Penal Code of 1999 notes:-"set the ransom" was the case after making the crime until before trial (first instance, appeal, Cassation, retrial), the offender is not the repentance, actively help the agencies responsible for detecting the criminal investigation, because they make, they also take actions to help the competent authorities detect, prevent other crimes, involved in crime detection, arrest perpetrators, has expressed his action for the benefit of the State, the collective, rights and legitimate interests of others ... be the competent agency awards or certifications.
-Who have outstanding achievements in production, learning combat or the work is the person who was awarded the Medal of merit, by labor, creativity or invention has a large value or many years recognized as the campaign..... c-item 2 Article 46 of the Penal Code of 1999 regulations : The Court may also consider the other details as extenuating circumstances, but is clearly in the judgment ". Follow the writing guide formerly of Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Court with the other authorities as well as trial practices in the past, the following situations are considered to be other extenuating circumstances:-spouse, father, mother, son, you , siblings accused of having to water or have outstanding achievements was awarded one of the honors such as: Labor heroes, heroes of the armed forces, Vietnam hero mother, artist, artists, teachers, teachers of excellence , physician, physician or other noble titles according to the regulations of the State:-the accused is wounded or had relatives like spouse, father, mother, child (a child or adopted child), the UK, the siblings are martyrs;
-The accused is disabled due to an accident during labor or in the work, the injury rate from 31%;
-The victim is also at fault;
-Damage caused by the fault of a third person;
-Family accused of fixing, compensation for damage in lieu of the accused;
-The victim or the legal representative of the victim apply for mitigation of punishment for the accused in the case only harm the health of the victim, causing damage to property;
-Guilty in the case because the serve request unscheduled work such as going against the hurricanes, flooding, emergency.
In addition, when trial, depending on the particular case and the particular circumstances of the offender, but also considered the other details as extenuating circumstances, but is clearly in the judgment.
d-When hearing notes the new rules are added in paragraph 3 to article 46 of the Penal Code of 1999 that the criminal code in 1985 did not rule, that is: "The extenuating circumstances were the criminal rules are certain signs of guilt or agreement shall not be considered in extenuating circumstances when sentencing".
For example, A person guilty of murder in the agitated mental state (Article 95 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code of 1999), when the penalty decision was not applied Article 46 paragraph 1 d of the Penal Code of 1999 with respect to that person.
6. The aggravating criminal liability (article 48).
 Article 48 of the Penal Code 1999 stipulates some additional aggravating criminal responsibility that Article 39 of the Penal Code in 1985 not yet regulated; in particular, the following details: a-guilty of professional nature (point b paragraph 1);
b-taking advantage of the prerogatives, powers to sin (if not in the case of taking advantage of the high position) (point c of paragraph 1);
c-crime rogue nature (a d clause 1);
d-offenses against persons indiscriminately yourself spiritually (point h paragraph 1);
-infringe the property of the State (point i of paragraph 1);
At the same time Article 48 of the Penal Code in 1999 also dropped the episode "crime in time are penalty" are specified in point d of paragraph 1 to article 39 of the Penal Code in 1985.
As defined in clause 2 article 7 of the Penal Code in 1999 and guided in circular No. 02/2000/TTLT, then do not apply the above aggravation to the crime made before 0:00 on 1 July 2000, after the time of this new trial, whether they have the aggravation.
7. Re the infringement (paragraph 1 Article 49) clause 1 Article 49 of the Penal Code 1999 stipulates: "it is that case were convicted, not yet deleted projects area of which again guilty of intentional or due to very serious offences, particularly serious crime due to inadvertent".
This regulation expands the audience of re-offending, i.e. do not benefit the offender in comparison with the provisions of paragraph 1 to article 40 of the Penal Code in 1985. According to paragraph 1 Article 40 of the Penal Code in 1985, the condition to considered re-offending as offenders "was imprisonment..., not yet clear that criminal convictions...", also as stipulated in clause 1 Article 49 of the Penal Code in 1999 to conditions deemed re-offending if the offender "was sentenced to , not yet deleted projects area of that offence ... ". That means the courts sanction any major punishment would (warn, fine, renovate detention not ...) not yet deleted projects area of the crime due to deliberate or very serious crime, particularly serious crime caused by inadvertent are all considered re-offense. Noting that the identification of very serious crimes, particularly crimes nghỉêm is based on the highest level of penalty is prescribed in the corresponding laws both in the Penal Code of 1999.
So, for the person convicted before 0:00 on 1-7-2000 without penalty or prison term, life imprisonment, the death penalty for the crime due to deliberate or serious offence, but after this point is not yet clear that project again guilty of intentional or due to very serious crimes crime, particularly serious due to inadvertence, then do not apply paragraph 1 to article 49 of the Penal Code in 1999 to considered them re-offending.
For example, A person with the Court on 30 caution-6-2000, on 30-5-2001 user back guilty due to willful, the Court deemed them not re-offending.
8. It is dangerous (item 2 Article 49) item 2 Article 49 of the Penal Code of 1999 regulations on dangerous re-offending is more profitable for the offender than the provisions in paragraph 2 to article 40 of the Penal Code, 1985; Therefore, pursuant to paragraph 3 article 7 of the Penal Code in 1999, the Court applied this rule to determine it is dangerous for the person convicted before 0:00 on 1 July 2000, but after this point is not yet clear which area criminal convictions. Noting that the identification of very serious crime, particularly serious crime is based on the highest level of penalty is prescribed in the respective laws of the criminal code in 1999.

Example 1: A person who has been sentenced to five years in prison on charges of smuggling according to paragraph 1 Article 97 of the Penal Code in 1985, after the date 1-7-2000 back crime and be prosecuted, tried on charges of trafficking in prohibited under paragraph 2 to article 156 of the Penal Code in 1999, according to the provisions of art. 2 Article 40 the criminal case is the 1985 re-offending risk the insurance; also according to the provisions of art. 2 Article 49 of the Penal Code of 1999, then this is the only case of re-offense.
Example 2: A person who has been deemed it as specified in paragraph 1 to article 40 of the Penal Code in 1985, not yet deleted projects, after the date 1-7-2000 back crime and be prosecuted, on trial on charges of killing people unintentionally under item 2 Article 98 of the Penal Code of 1999, then this case is still not determined is it dangerous as specified in point b of paragraph 2 Article 40 of the Penal Code in 1985.
9. Define it, it is dangerous in some specific cases in the cases specified in section 3 of the resolution No. 32 of the Congress.
a-in the case of a person convicted of the crime under the provisions of the criminal code in 1985, now under the provisions of the criminal code in 1999, the behavior that is not a crime (i.e. all are deleted projects from the day area 04-1-2000 under section 3 of the National Assembly resolution 32) , do not count the times this conviction to define it, it's dangerous.
For example, in 1998 a person sentenced to 6 months in jail on charges of theft of property of citizens (assets worth under five hundred thousand Dong, without causing serious consequences, have not sanctioned the Administration regarding appropriation of property, not convicted of the crime of appropriating the property or was convicted of the crime of appropriation of property , but was deleted projects area of the Executive), after finishing the imprisonment sentence in 1999 again sentenced to 1 years in prison on charges of disturbing public order (without causing serious consequences, have not sanctioned the Administration about this behavior, has not yet been sentenced for the crime or was sentenced for the crime but has been deleted projects) and the Executive have done jail penalty , as defined in clause 1 Article 138, paragraph 1 Article 245 of the Penal Code of 1999, item 3 of the resolution No. 32 of the Congress, in this case the person is naturally removed from the day area project 04-1-2000 for all sentenced over here.
b-in the case of a person convicted of the crime under the provisions of the criminal code in 1985, now under the provisions of the criminal code in 1999, the behavior is not a crime (i.e. deleted projects from the day area 04-1-2000 under section 3 of the National Assembly resolution 32) There is still the behavior, crime, do not count the times convicted of acts which under the provisions of the Criminal Code of 1999 is not a crime to identify is it, it is dangerous.
Example 1: in 1997 a person sentenced to 6 months in jail on charges of theft of property of citizens (assets worth under five hundred thousand Dong, without causing serious consequences, have not sanctioned the Administration regarding appropriation of property, not convicted of the crime of appropriating the property or was convicted of the crime of appropriation of property , but has been deleted projects area of the Executive), after finishing the penalty of prison, then in 1998 again sentenced to 2 years in prison on charges of buying and selling women. In the case prescribed in clause 1 Article 138, paragraph 1 Article 119 of the Penal Code of 1999, item 3 of the resolution No. 32 of the Congress, of course, that person was deleting projects area of since 4 January 2000 against times sentenced to 6 months in prison, and sentenced to 2 years jail time not be delete projects and must look to determine it , it is dangerous.
For example, in 1995 a person sentenced to 6 months in jail on charges of theft of property of citizens (assets worth under five hundred thousand Dong, without causing serious consequences, have not sanctioned the Administration regarding appropriation of property, not convicted of the crime of appropriating the property or was convicted of the crime of appropriation of property , but has been deleted projects); After the executor has finished the 1998 Criminal sentenced to 3 years in prison on charges of theft of property of citizens (property worth 300 thousand) according to point d item 2 Article 155 of the Penal Code, 1985; as specified in paragraph 1 to article 138 of the Penal Code of 1999 and section 3 resolution No. 32 of the Congress, in this case the person is naturally removed from the day area project 04-1-2000 for sentenced first to six months jail (with the reason not to have the full range of factors that constitute the crime) also, the times was sentenced after prescribed in clause 1 Article 138 of the Penal Code of 1999, the behavior that is still the crime (at the time the prejudice criminal liability), should not be to delete the project area and are considered to define it, it is dangerous.
10. lighter sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code (article 47).
When the lighter penalty provisions provisions of the criminal code should implement the provisions of article 47 of the Penal Code in 1999 and should note the following points: a-rule "the Court could decide a penalty below the lowest level of penalty which the law has rules but are in frames adjacent to the lighter penalty of the law" applied in the case of laws from two penalty and offenders suffer prejudice criminal liability is not according to the lightest penalty framework. If the penalty of the law are arranged in the order 1, 2, 3 ... and from the lightest to the heaviest, then follow this rule when two extenuating circumstances the provisions of paragraph 1 to article 46 of the Penal Code in 1999, the Court can only prescribe a penalty in the penalty of paragraph 1, if the offender was tried according to clause 2; The Court can only decide on a penalty in the penalty of clause 2, if the offender was tried under paragraph 3.
For example, A person guilty of stealing property and two extenuating circumstances the provisions of paragraph 1 to article 46 of the Penal Code of 1999, the application of the above provisions of article 47 of the Penal Code of 1999 are as follows:-If the offender was tried according to item 2 Article 138 of the Penal Code of 1999 the Court could decide a penalty under 2 years in prison, but in the frame of penalty clause 1; in particular only be imprisonment from 6 months to 2 years or a fine improvement, not imprisoned up to three years.
-If the offender was tried under paragraph 3 to article 138 of the Penal Code of 1999 the Court may decide for them a penalty under 7 years, but in the frame of penalty clause 2; in particular only be imprisonment from 2 years to 7 years.
-If the offender was tried under paragraph 4 to article 138 of the Penal Code of 1999 the Court may decide for them a penalty under 12 years, but is in the frame of penalty clause 3; in particular only be imprisonment from 7 years to under 12 years.
b-when applying the provisions "in the case of the law just got a penalty or a penalty that is the lightest penalty of the law, the Court can decide a penalty below the lowest level of the frame or switch to a different kind of lighter penalty" in need of attention :-as for the penalty, the duration prescribed in article 33 of the Penal Code in 1999 to a minimum of this penalty is 3 months; Therefore, in all cases when deciding a penalty below the lowest level of penalty which the law prescribed the lowest level of penalty is over 3 months in prison, then was not decided the level of penalty under 3 months; If the lowest level of penalty is 3 months in jail, then can only moved to another penalty in the lighter types.

Example 1: A person trafficking in counterfeit goods equal to the amount of real goods worth 40 million in paragraph 1 to article 156 of the Penal Code in 1999, has two extenuating circumstances the provisions of paragraph 1 to article 46 of the Penal Code in 1999 and over, for they can only decide a penalty of imprisonment from 3 months to 6 months or move to the penalty another type of lighter (warning, fines, detention not improving).
Example 2: A person who organized the marriage for those who have not yet reached the age of marriage has been the administrative sanction this behavior but also violates according to the provisions of article 148 of the Penal Code in 1999, has two extenuating circumstances the provisions of paragraph 1 to article 46 of the Penal Code in 1999 and over , for they are not deciding a penalty under 3 months (low levels of types of imprisonment term) which can only sanction warning, improvement is not confined to 2 years.
-For improving punishment not detained, according to the provisions of article 31 of the Penal Code in 1999, the minimum level of the penalty is 6 months; Therefore, in all cases when deciding a penalty below the lowest level of the penalty, not the penalty level decision to renovate detention not under 6 months.
-For the money, then the penalty according to the provisions of article 30 of the Penal Code in 1999, the minimum is 1 million; Therefore, in all cases when deciding a penalty below the lowest level of the penalty, not deciding penalty amount under 1 million. If the lowest level of penalty is 1 million, you can only switch to a different kind of lighter penalty is warning.
c-the need to limit and be very closely when applying the provisions of article 47 of the Penal Code of 1999 in the case if there are many extenuating circumstances the provisions of paragraph 1 to article 46 of the Penal Code of 1999, then the accused is sentenced in the high level of penalty. Usually in this case, when there are many extenuating circumstances the provisions of paragraph 1 to article 46 of the Penal Code in 1999, the Court could decide a penalty at a low level of penalty that the accused was tried.
d-When hearing the same times a person committing more crime, if the crime for which the offender has many extenuating circumstances the provisions of paragraph 1 to article 46 of the Penal Code of 1999, then can apply Article 47 of the Penal Code in 1999 to lighter sentencing provisions of the criminal code for offences which , then the General sentencing under the provisions of article 50 of the Penal Code of 1999.
-the reason for lighter sentencing provisions of the criminal code should be specified in the judgment.
e-according to the provisions of article 47 of the Penal Code of 1999, then the lighter sentencing provisions of the criminal code only applies to the main penalty that does not apply to additional punishment, because for additional punishment may not be multiple penalty no rules, a penalty, there is no penalty for light and not regulating the switch to other penalties in lighter types.
11. Remove the judgment (Article 64, 65, 66 and 67 Articles).
When delete projects area of must implement the provisions of articles 64, 65, 66 and 67 of the Penal Code in 1999 and should note the following points: a-To be clear of the judgment of the special case, the convicted person must have sufficient conditions: progressing remarkably; already set up; is the Agency, organization, or place that the local government where the person recommended permanent; have enough one-third the time limit specified in article 64, article 65 of the Penal Code of 1999, since the're done Executive judgment or from the end of the judgment execution.
-"There is" palpable progress after finishing Executive judgment or from the time when the sentence has to integrate into the community, join the honest business, full observance of the undertakings of the party and State policy ...-"established" is having outstanding achievements in life , in production, fight, study, be competent authority rewarded or certification.
b-when applying the provisions of paragraph 1 to article 67 of the Penal Code of 1999 noting that the time limit for deleting projects is based on the major penalty was declared, which is not based on the additional punishment; that time limit shall be calculated starting from the date of finishing the main penalty executor, additional penalties and other court decisions, rather than start to be counted from the date of observance of the main punishment is finished.
For example, a penalty of 2 years in prison on charges of theft of property, must compensate the victim by 5 million, to be paid 50 thousand the first instance criminal court fees and 250 thousand civil court fees at first instance. In this case, as specified in paragraph 2 to article 64 of the Penal Code in 1999, the people of course are deleted projects, if the expiry of three years from the day the accomplished Executive penalty 2 years, finished the 5 million compensation for the victim, have filed 50 thousand the first instance criminal court fees and 250 thousand civil appeals court fees or from the date of most of the time the execution sentence, that person is not guilty. The 3-year period is calculated from the date of finishing all the executive decision of judgment (includes: 2 year jail penalty, fostering for the victim 5 million, filed enough 50 thousand the first instance criminal court fees and 250 thousand civil appeals court fee) rather than from the date of finishing the main penalty Executive is 2 years imprisonment; namely:-If the Executive before finishing 2-year imprisonment sentence that person has done for the victim compensation of 5 million, have filed 50 thousand the first instance criminal court fees and 250 thousand civil court fees, the time limit of three years calculated from the day the accomplished Executive penalty 2 years.
-If the Executive after finishing a two-year prison penalty has done for the victim compensation of 5 million, but has not filed a full account of court fees (although had decided to enforce the judgment), the time limit of three years calculated from the date they filed a full account of court fees .... c-the Executive considered the main punishment is done additional penalties, and the other judgement's decision in the following cases:-convict himself had finished the main penalty executor, additional penalties and other decisions of the judgment;
-The person sentenced has finished the main penalty executor, additional penalty, left the decision about the property in the criminal judgment was filed instead of the convicted person (relatives of the convicted, compensation has paid court fees, fines ... instead of the person convicted or sentenced person who must jointly compensate sufficiently the entire compensation was under the decision of judgment);
-People sentenced to prison, but probation is entitled the Executive has completed probation, in case the Executive has done additional penalties and other decisions of the judgment (if any).
d-When considering the time sentence has expired or is not yet to consider deleting the project, need pursuant to article 55 of the Penal Code of 1999. Especially note that the time of execution of criminal judgments for money before sanctions are stipulated in the criminal code in 1985, should be executed according to the Ordinance on civil enforcement, additional provisions have been in art. 2 Article 55 of the Penal Code, 1999 This regulation, which according to the time of execution of the judgment for the penalty amount is 5 years from the date of the judgment, the decision of the courts of law.

With regard to other decisions about the property of criminal judgments (such as: cash compensation; returning the confiscated property; objects, directly related to money damages, property seizure; court fees ...), then still under the enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance enforcement of civil judgments (article 1). Article 21 the enforcement Ordinance has specific regulations about the time sentence, decided to have the rule of law; Therefore, to consider the time of execution of the judgment for the decision about the property in the criminal judgment has expired or is not yet the need to distinguish as follows: d.1-out time limits for the execution of the decision on the property in the criminal judgment, if the expiry of the provisions in article 21 the enforcement Ordinance that no objective obstacles but who was no single execution sent to enforcement agencies request execution or in case the judgment enforcement agency heads must be active decision execution, but the decision was not executed.
For example:-the expiry of three years from the date of the judgment, the decision of the courts of law, individuals are the courts decided to return the property or compensation even though there is no objective obstacles, but no single agency sending execution to request execution , then the decision on the return of property or compensation for this damage of the Tribunal expired.
-The expiry of 1 year from the date of the judgment, the decision of the Tribunal the legal effect which the Agency held enforceable judgment have no single enforcement agency sent to request the enforcement of the judgment for decisions on pay or compensation of property damage Socialist property and execution agency heads also don't actively enforce the decision the judgment under the provisions of the Ordinance on civil enforcement, then the decision of the Tribunal expired.
d. 2-If within the time limit specified in article 21 the enforcement Ordinance that individual execution, agency, organization is executed projects have single send request sentence enforcement agency executed projects or heads the implementation of proactive projects of decision execution then, only if the person sentenced complete enforcement decisions about property or have decided to suspend the enforcement of the judgment shall be deemed to have accepted the Court's decision is done on the property in the criminal judgment.
12. the effect of the resolution.
This resolution was Appeals Council phám of the Supreme People's Court passed on 4 August 2000 and is effective since September 1, 2000.
 
 
TM. The COUNCIL of JUDGES of the SUPREME PEOPLE'S COURT CHIEF JUSTICE (signed) Trinh Hong Duong