Defendant Tran Dinh Trien was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

On January 10, the Hanoi People's Court sentenced defendant Tran Dinh Trien (born in 1959, practicing lawyer, Head of the Vi Dan Law Office). Accordingly, defendant Trien was sentenced to 3 years in prison for the crime of Abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the State and the legitimate rights and interests of organizations and individuals.

According to the indictment, on February 3, 2013, Tran Dinh Trien created an account on the social networking site Facebook under the name “Tran Dinh Trien”, registered with the information of Lawyer Tran Dinh Trien, Head of the Vi Dan Law Office. This Facebook account is only managed and used by Tran Dinh Trien personally, without sharing administrative rights with anyone else.

During his practice as a lawyer, Tran Dinh Trien developed personal resentment, believing that the judiciary and the leadership of the Supreme People's Court had unreasonable issues.

Therefore, from April 23, 2024 to May 9, 2024, Tran Dinh Trien drafted and posted 3 articles on the Facebook page "Tran Dinh Trien".

The expert conclusion determined that the posted information had content that affected the reputation and honor, and infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the People's Court system and the Supreme People's Court's leaders. This had a negative impact on security, order, and social safety.

During the investigation, defendant Tran Dinh Trien admitted that the information and content stated in the above articles were self-collected, commented on, and evaluated based on subjective opinions about the Court sector and individual leaders of the Supreme People's Court without authentic information, documents, or evidence to verify.

Regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the indictment determined that Mr. Trien committed the crime for the first time, had a sincere attitude in his confession, was aware of his wrongdoings, and had sent a letter of apology to the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court, so he was entitled to mitigating circumstances.