Section 393: Insult in presence or by publication
Statutory text (Thai original)
ผู้ใดดูหมิ่นผู้อื่นซึ่งหน้าหรือด้วยการโฆษณา ต้องระวางโทษจำคุกไม่เกินหนึ่งเดือน หรือปรับไม่เกินหนึ่งหมื่นบาท หรือทั้งจำทั้งปรับ หมายเหตุ: [อัตราโทษ แก้ไขเพิ่มเติมโดยมาตรา ๖ แห่งพระราชบัญญัติแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมประมวลกฎหมายอาญา (ฉบับที่ ๒๒) พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘]
English translation
Whoever insults another person in that person's presence or by means of publication shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one month, or a fine not exceeding ten 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
The elements are an act of insult expressing contempt and that it is done either in the victim's presence or by publication. It must be distinguished from criminal defamation under Sections 326 and 328, which requires imputing a fact to a third party that damages the victim's reputation; insult under Section 393 is contemptuous abuse and, in the face-to-face form, needs no third-party audience. Where the person insulted is an official in the course of duty, Section 136 may apply instead. Earlier decisions applied a former version of the text with a lower maximum fine, while the current text sets the fine at 10,000 baht. The offence is compoundable under Section 395.
Why this matters in practice
For anyone deciding how to respond to an insult, the choice between an insult charge under Section 393 and a defamation charge matters: defamation requires a false statement of fact communicated to a third party, while a face-to-face insult does not. Section 393 is a compoundable petty offence, so a private complaint and later settlement are common, and the injured person must complain within three months of learning of the offence and offender. For the wider picture, see our guide to defamation charges in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3851/2563 (2020)
Where a charge is framed as insulting an official on duty but the evidence shows the words were spoken to the victim as a private individual, the court may convict under Section 393 for insulting another person in their presence, provided the complaint sets out the face-to-face insulting words.
The prosecution charged insulting an official in the performance of duty, but the facts established that the defendant insulted the victim as an ordinary person to their face. Because the complaint described the face-to-face insulting words, which are the elements of insult under Section 393, the court had power to convict under that section.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 61 Supreme Court decisions (1958 to 2025)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 6794/2561 (2018)
- Decision 13173/2558 (2015)
- Decision 3711/2557 (2014)
- Decision 2867/2547 (2004)
- Decision 694-695/2529 (1986)
- Decision 2874/2528 (1985)
- Decision 295/2514 (1971)
- Decision 259/2514 (1971)
This list is selected automatically, weighted towards judgments that turn on this section rather than ones that merely recite it when passing sentence. It has not yet been reviewed by the firm.
Most often cited alongside
- Section 326 19
- Section 91 17
- Section 29 14
- Section 30 14
- Section 83 11
- Section 328 10
Sections that appear in the same judgments as this one most often. The figure is the number of decisions.
Counted across the firm's corpus of 83,652 Supreme Court decisions, 1921 to 2026. The count is complete; the stated year range trims rare outliers so it describes where the citations actually sit. These figures are computed by us and are not official court statistics. How we count these, and what we measured
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between insult under Section 393 and defamation?
Insult under Section 393 is contemptuous abuse to the victim's face or by publication and needs no third party, while defamation requires imputing a fact to a third party that damages reputation.
Can a court convict for insult under Section 393 if the charge was insulting an official?
Yes. Where the evidence shows the words were spoken to the victim as a private individual and the complaint describes the face-to-face insult, the court may convict under Section 393.
Is insult under Section 393 compoundable?
Yes. Section 395 makes the offence compoundable, so the injured person may settle and withdraw the complaint before the case becomes final.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 393 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 393. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-393/ (accessed 17 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 393 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-393/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-393/"><p>Whoever insults another person in that person's presence or by means of publication shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one month, or a fine not exceeding ten thousand baht, or both.</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 393 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-393/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.