Lawyer's character

In Fang Yi's view, from a moral point of view, one side is desperately seeking legal debts for the company, and the other side is not paying back the money and has gone bankrupt. Both sides have difficulties, and all the contradictions are squeezed together. In the end, The victim (debtor) could not bear the pressure and committed suicide. It is difficult to distinguish right from wrong in this case.

In fact, forced debt has been around since ancient times, and debtors have committed suicide everywhere. It is difficult to find any way to truly alleviate the conflicts between the two parties. Only money can solve countless sorrows.

money! It's honey, but it's also a killing knife.

"Do the prosecutors, defenders, and appellant have any new evidence to submit?" the presiding judge asked.

"There is no new evidence." Sanfang said.

…

"The court investigation is over and the court debate is now underway. Before the debate, the court draws the attention of both the prosecution and the defense that the debate should mainly focus on determining guilt, sentencing and other controversial issues.

The appellant Cheng Wu can defend himself. "The chief judge said.

"I never detained Huacheng, and I never wanted to harm him. I just wanted to repay the debt he owed us. If the company hadn't been in real operating difficulties, I wouldn't have pressed so hard on the debt. I wouldn't be able to go back even during the Spring Festival. Home..." As he spoke, Cheng Wu's eye circles turned red and his eyes were a little moist.

"The defender of the appellant Cheng Wu will speak next," the presiding judge said.

“The defender believes that the appellant Cheng Wu does not commit the crime of illegal detention for the following reasons:

According to the provisions of the Criminal Law, the crime of illegal detention refers to the act of illegally depriving others of their right to physical freedom by illegal detention, confinement or other methods.

The evidence provided by the public prosecution agency cannot prove that the appellant Cheng Wu ever detained Huacheng, nor can it prove that Cheng Wu ever forcibly prevented Huacheng from going out. According to Cheng Wu's confession, the appellant Cheng Wu not only did not stop him, but instead repeatedly encouraged Hua Cheng to go home or find friends to raise funds.

In addition, Cheng Wu did not forcefully designate Hua Cheng's travel route, but simply followed Hua Cheng. Hua Cheng's personal freedom was only restricted, not deprived of it.

In other words, the behavior of eating, living and traveling together did not reach the level of depriving the victim of his freedom. The court of first instance determined that the appellant’s behavior constituted the crime of illegal detention, which resulted in inaccurate characterization of the case and improper application of the law.

The defender believes that the appellant Cheng Wu constitutes the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, which is not enough to constitute the crime of illegal detention. Since its purpose is to recover legal debts, it is less harmful to society, and he has confessed and repented, he requests the court to sentence the appellant to a suspended sentence in accordance with the law. complete. "Fang Yi said.

Fang Yi didn't want to, and didn't dare to challenge the Intermediate Court judge's IQ. He was learning every day. Even if he didn't bring up the matter of provoking trouble, there was a high probability that the judge would give the same sentence, but the sentencing might not be so friendly. On the one hand, it is not good for Cheng Wu, and his cleverness will be misled by his cleverness. It is better to make it clear and plead the crime of provocation and let the judge consider it when sentencing.

"The prosecutor will now speak," the presiding judge said.

“…In order to collect the arrears, the appellant Cheng Wu monitored the victim 24 hours a day by sharing meals, living together, traveling with him, etc., which seriously restricted the victim’s freedom and daily life, which in turn led to the serious consequences of the victim’s suicide.

We believe that the court of first instance found the facts clearly and applied the law appropriately, and we ask the court to reject the appellant’s appeal in accordance with the law. complete. "Inspector Li said.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinions." The presiding judge looked up at the prosecutor's box.

“In response to the defender’s defense, we believe that both restriction of freedom and deprivation of freedom are prohibited by law, and we believe that serious restrictions on the expansion of freedom can be interpreted as deprivation of freedom.

The appellant Cheng Wu used the method of collecting money from the victim Hua Cheng by eating, living and traveling together for several months, which severely restricted Hua Cheng's freedom. Therefore, we believe that the defendant Cheng Wu committed the crime of illegal detention. complete! "Inspector Li said.

“The defender can respond to the prosecutor’s opinions,” the presiding judge said.

“Based on the prosecutor’s defense opinions and response, the defender issued the following defense opinions:

The crime of illegal detention means that the victim is unable to move freely. For example, illegal detention, forced confinement, illegal isolation and examination, etc., but no matter which method is used, it is characterized by illegal deprivation of others' personal freedom. In other words, only to the extent that it deprives the victim of his freedom can the crime of illegal detention be determined.

Paragraph 3 of Article 37 of the Constitution stipulates that ‘illegal detention and other methods of illegally depriving or restricting citizens’ personal freedom are prohibited’.

Paragraph 3 of Article 241 of the "Criminal Law" stipulates, 'Buying abducted women and children, illegally depriving and restricting their personal freedom...'

It can be seen from the above provisions that ‘deprivation’ and ‘restriction’ are in a parallel relationship, indicating that they have different meanings. According to the principle of legality of crime and punishment, if the law does not expressly stipulate that the crime is a crime, it shall not be convicted and sentenced.

No interpretation can break through the provisions of the law, let alone equate restricting or severely restricting others' personal freedom with depriving them of personal freedom.

Generally speaking, illegal deprivation of personal freedom includes two categories: one is the direct application of external force to the victim's body, so that the victim is physically deprived of physical freedom, such as being imprisoned in a certain room and prohibited from leaving. The other type is to control the victim's psychology so that he cannot or dare not move freely.

In this case, the victim Hua Cheng was neither physically nor mentally controlled to the point of being controlled and losing his freedom. Therefore, the defender believes that the behavior of the appellant Cheng Wu does not constitute the crime of illegal detention.

In addition, the "Criminal Law Amendment (8)" added the act of "intimidating" others to the provisions on the objective behavior of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble in the 1997 Criminal Law.

The defender believes that Cheng Wu's behavior of eating, living and traveling together, as well as committing minor violence and intimidation, is an act of provoking trouble by intimidating others, and should be convicted and punished for the crime of provoking trouble. The reasons are as follows:

According to the evidence provided by the prosecutor, the appellant Cheng Wu had been with the victim Hua Cheng for a long time, eating and living together. Hua Cheng's freedom was restricted and was known to many people.

Huacheng and his family called the police. After the police went out, they repeatedly asked Cheng Wu to collect debts normally and stop restricting his personal freedom. However, Cheng Wu refused to listen to the dissuasion and continued to carry out the aforementioned behaviors, which led to Huacheng's suicide. Cheng Wu's behavior It has caused certain damage to social order.

According to Article 1, paragraph 3, of the "Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Handling of Criminal Cases of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble", the perpetrator beats, insults, intimidates or intimidates others due to disputes over marriage, family, neighborhood, debt, etc. Behaviors such as damaging or occupying other people's property are generally not considered 'picking quarrels and provoking trouble', unless the behavior is continued after being criticized and stopped or punished by relevant departments, except for disrupting social order.

Based on the above explanation, the defender believes that the appellant Cheng Wu committed the crime of seeking trouble and causing trouble.

According to the provisions of Article 8 of the above-mentioned interpretation, ‘If the perpetrator pleads guilty, repentes, actively compensates the victim for losses or obtains the victim’s understanding, he may be given a lighter punishment; if the crime is minor, he may not be prosecuted or be exempted from criminal punishment. ’

Although the appellant Cheng Wu did not accept the crime found by the court of first instance, he had realized the harm his actions had caused to the victim, and was willing to bear the corresponding legal responsibility and repent. Moreover, the appellant Cheng Wu had not suffered any previous crimes. As for criminal punishment, the defender suggested that the appellant be sentenced to probation instead! complete. "Fang Yi said.