Lawyer's character

In the Eighth Trial Court of the Provincial High Court, there were not many people in the auditorium. Zhou Yingqi’s father, Mr. Zhou, was among them. He was holding the Suxiao Jiuxin Pill in his hand and his heart was beating wildly. He didn’t know what the next trial would be like. Daughters are a blessing and a curse.

Three judges of the collegial panel sat on it, and the presiding judge was the president of the criminal division of the Provincial High Court. The inspectors from the Provincial Procuratorate sitting opposite Fang Yi and Zhou Ying were two middle-aged male inspectors. It seems that both sides have fielded relatively strong lineups.

…

"The prosecutor will read out the statement of protest below," the presiding judge said.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: This court believes that the appellant Zhou Yingqi has committed the crime of accepting bribes. The protest opinions are as follows:

…The court of first instance did not determine that all the 8.18 million yuan received by Zhao Xiaojie from Zhou Yingqi was a bribe, which was an error in determining the facts; it did not determine that the 300,000 yuan received by Zhou Yingqi from Jiayue Company was a bribe, which was an error in the application of law. . In addition, the sentence imposed by the court of first instance was obviously too light, and the court is requested to change the sentence. complete. "The prosecutor said.

"The appellant Zhou Yingqi will state the reasons for the appeal below," the presiding judge said.

"The first instance found that the 1.88 million yuan I received from Zhao Xiaojie was a bribe, but I don't agree with it. My promotion for Zhao Xiaojie's activities was based on our feelings and was a transaction involving power and money." Zhou Yingqi said.

"The appellant's defender issued his reasons for appeal." the presiding judge said.

“The defender believes that the court of first instance determined that the appellant Zhou Yingqi’s acceptance of 1.88 million yuan from Zhao Xiaojie was bribery, which was an error in the determination of facts.

The appellant Zhou Yingqi and Zhao Xiaojie were lovers and had already planned to get married. It was this special relationship between them that led to frequent economic exchanges between the two parties and the confusion of property.

According to Zhou Yingqi and Zhao Xiaojie's plan, they will live together and become a family in the near future. In view of this, Zhou Yingqi's activities for Zhao Xiaojie's promotion may be suspected of violating discipline, but it is also humane.

Therefore, Zhou Yingqi's acceptance of 1.88 million from Zhao Xiaojie does not constitute bribery. Please ask the court to acquit the appellant in accordance with the law. complete. "Fang Yi said.

(According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, in a second-instance case where there is both a protest by the procuratorate and an appeal by the defendant, the prosecutor of the protest will speak first, then the appellant will speak, and finally the defender will speak)

Subsequently, the parties' description of the facts of the case was consistent with that of the first trial. The parties did not submit new evidence and will not elaborate further.

"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 prosecutor will speak first. "The chief judge said.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: We believe that Zhou Yingqi accepted a total of 8.48 million yuan in payments from Zhao Xiaojie and Jiayue Company, which should all be considered bribes. The reasons are as follows:

1. Although the appellant Zhou Yingqi and Zhao Xiaojie were lovers, Zhao Xiaojie repeatedly gave Zhou Yingqi large amounts of property and asked Zhou Yingqi to help him with job promotion and reduction of responsibilities. Zhou Yingqi made recommendations and interceded with relevant leaders of the group company at Zhao Xiaojie's request. . On the whole, Zhou Yingqi was seeking improper benefits for Zhao Xiaojie, and his behavior should be classified as bribery.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance failed to accurately evaluate the nature of Zhou Yingqi’s entire behavior, resulting in the reduction of some criminal facts. At the same time, the appellant Zhou Yingqi used her power to select suppliers to help the Jiayue Company established by Zhao Xiaojie's relatives Zou Jia and Zhao Yue to obtain business from technology companies and received 300,000 yuan. His behavior should also be regarded as bribery. .

3. The court of first instance ruled that the house purchased by Zhou Yingqi using bribe money did not comply with the provisions of Article 18 of the "Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Corruption and Bribery", and the relevant property and income were not punished. The recovery is due to improper handling of the money and property involved in the case, which should be corrected in accordance with the law.

The above is the protest opinion of this court, completed. "The prosecutor said.

"The appellant Zhou Yingqi will now conduct his own defense," the presiding judge said.

"I think the facts found by the court of first instance were wrong. Zhao Xiaojie and I were lovers. During this period, the money I received from Zhao Xiaojie and Jiayue Company was entirely based on my special relationship with Zhao Xiaojie. There was no power-for-money transaction. , I feel that I should not be guilty of accepting bribes.

My legal knowledge is shallow. If the Provincial High Court considers that my behavior constitutes bribery and makes a judgment against me, I will accept the judgment. However, I have a special relationship with Zhao Xiaojie. My family has returned 2.8 million yuan to the procuratorate on my behalf and asks the court to take it into full consideration when sentencing. Zhou Yingqi said.

She had carefully considered this set of words, and her meaning was very clear: First, she expressed her attitude that she believed the facts found by the first-instance court were wrong. If the second-instance court found her guilty, she would accept it unconditionally (the key is not to accept it); secondly, , reiterated the relationship between her and Zhao Xiaojie, and asked the court to consider the actual situation; finally, she told the second-instance court that her family had actively returned the stolen goods, and the second-instance court had to properly consider the situation of actively returning the stolen goods, and not to judge too harshly. !

She felt that she could advance or retreat or defend in this way, and she would not suffer any disadvantage, but it sounded a little inconsistent, making people confused, and they didn't know what she was thinking.

"The defender of the appellant Zhou Yingqi has spoken." the presiding judge said.

Fang Yi picked up the rewritten defense statement and said: "Presiding judge, judge: The defender believes that the appellant Zhou Yingqi is not guilty of accepting bribes. The reasons are as follows:

1. Zhou Yingqi’s behavior of accepting money from her lover should not be considered as bribery.

The defender believes that in the bribery case, no matter how long the timeline between receiving property and seeking benefits is stretched, and even the two parties agree to "do things" while in office and to collect money after retirement, there is a corresponding relationship between seeking profits and collecting money. It is still self-explanatory and generally requires no special proof.

However, when there is a special relationship between the bribe-giving party and the bribe-receiving party, further proof of the purpose of the behavior of both parties is required, as is the case in this case.

First, the evidence in the case shows that the appellant Zhou Yingqi and Zhao Xiaojie had a romantic relationship. Over a period of more than four years, the appellant Zhou Yingqi and Zhao Xiaojie went from confirming their romantic relationship to agreeing to get married and preparing to purchase a "marriage house." Then they lived together, and finally broke up, maintaining a relationship that lasted for more than four years. Although there were immoral elements, the two hoped to eventually form a family during the relationship. And after Zhou Yingqi and Zhao Xiaojie confirmed their relationship, they quickly went through the divorce procedures. Since then, Zhao Xiaojie has filed suit for divorce with the court many times, but all were rejected. "