Section 360 — Damaging public-benefit property
English translation
Whoever damages, destroys, depreciates, or renders useless property that is used or held for public benefit shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand baht, or both.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 360 is an aggravated form of mischief protecting property that serves the public. Its distinguishing element is that the damaged property is used or held for public benefit, such as a public road, public utility, or common land, rather than property serving only a private owner or group. The penalty rises to five years, the same as Section 359, reflecting the wider harm caused when a communal resource is damaged. The critical dividing line is public versus private benefit: property that benefits only the buyers of a particular development or a limited group is not within Section 360 and is instead ordinary mischief under Section 358. Because it protects the public interest, a person specially affected in his use of a public resource has standing to prosecute.
Why this matters in practice
The first question in any Section 360 case is whether the damaged property truly serves the general public: if it benefits only a private group, the correct and lighter charge is Section 358. This distinction directly affects the five-year exposure and any bail assessment. A private individual can prosecute where he suffers special damage in his use of a public resource, such as a blocked or destroyed public way, beyond the harm shared by the general public. Unlike plain Section 358 mischief, the public-benefit offence is not made compoundable by Section 361, so it cannot simply be settled away. See criminal law in Thailand for the broader framework.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1552/2568 (2025)
Property that exists only for the benefit of buyers in a particular land development, and not for the general public, is not property used or held for public benefit, so damaging it is not an offence under Section 360.
The court held that a concrete boundary wall serving only the buyers of a land development was not public-benefit property, so damaging it did not constitute the offence under Section 360, and the case was correctly considered as ordinary mischief under Section 358.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3819/2563 (2020)
Where the accused's conduct disturbs the plaintiffs' right to use public common land and causes them special damage beyond that of the general public, the plaintiffs are injured parties with standing to prosecute the public-benefit mischief offence under Section 360.
The plaintiffs were held to be specially damaged in their use of public common land as a result of the defendants' conduct, giving them standing to prosecute under Section 360. The trial court convicted both defendants under Section 360, imposing a fine on one and imprisonment on the other.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What counts as public-benefit property under Section 360?
Property used or held for the benefit of the general public, such as a public road, public utility, or common land. Property serving only a private owner or limited group does not qualify.
Can a private person prosecute under Section 360?
Yes, where he suffers special damage in his own use of the public resource, beyond the harm shared by the general public, he is an injured party with standing to prosecute.
Is Section 360 compoundable?
No. Section 361 makes only plain mischief under Section 358 compoundable, so the public-benefit offence under Section 360 cannot simply be settled and withdrawn.