Lawyer's character

The prosecutor sitting in the first position opposite finally recognized Fang Yi and thought to himself: It's this guy again, this guy is so good at squirting. Thanks to being well prepared, otherwise I would have been fooled by him.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinions," the presiding judge said.

“In response to the defense counsel’s defense, the prosecutor expressed the following views:

1. The death penalty may be applied to this case

We believe that "causing the kidnapped person's death" stipulated in Article 239 of the old Criminal Law should include the killing of the kidnapped person. "Killing a kidnapped person" should include situations where killing is committed but has not yet resulted in death. In other words, 'causing the kidnapped person to die' is a requirement for aggravating consequences, while 'killing the kidnapped person' is a requirement for aggravating circumstances.

In this case, the defendant Sun Dalin deliberately injured the victim during the kidnapping, causing the victim to be seriously injured. Applying the death penalty to the defendant is in line with the original legislative intention of Article 239 of the old Criminal Law.

Moreover, the Criminal Law Amendment (9) also adheres to this idea, amending the second paragraph of the crime of kidnapping to read: Whoever commits the crime of the preceding paragraph and kills the kidnapped person, or intentionally harms the kidnapped person, causing serious injury or death, shall be sentenced to life imprisonment. Imprisonment or death.

Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the death penalty to the defendant in this case.

2. This case should be punished for several crimes.

In this case, the defendant Sun Dalin used particularly cruel means to intentionally injure the victim and cause serious injuries during the ongoing kidnapping. His means were particularly cruel. We believe that a separate evaluation is necessary.

If the defendant's harmful behavior is "absorbed" into the crime of kidnapping, no matter how much money is extorted or the extent of the harm to the victim, as long as the victim does not die, the maximum sentence can only be life imprisonment. We consider this to be a criminal offence. Therefore, the defendant's harmful behavior should be classified as intentional injury. The defendant's behavior should be punished in accordance with the crime of kidnapping and intentional injury. complete. "The prosecutor said.

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

The presiding judge already had a rough idea of ​​the case's verdict in his mind. He had no choice but to do so. There were too many cases in his hands. Before the trial, he just glanced at the case and understood the facts. As for the rest... all It depends on the trial.

“In response to the prosecutor’s defense opinions and responses, the defender issued the following defense opinions:

1. The death penalty should not be applied in this case

The defender believes that the Criminal Law has the principle of leniency and leniency, so the newly revised Criminal Law should not be applied to this case. There are certain flaws in the prosecutor’s defense opinion for the following reasons:

1. If 'killing the kidnapped person' is understood to include not only the consequences of the killing, but also the act of killing, it will inevitably result in that as long as there is an act of killing, regardless of whether it causes minor injuries, serious injuries, severe disabilities or death, all crimes can only be sentenced without exception. The death penalty is inconsistent with the principle of proportionality of crime and punishment, and violates the original intention of the legislation.

The defender believes that the original legislative intention of Article 239 of the old Criminal Law was to emphasize that the death of the victim must be the result.

2. When judicial interpretations and relevant laws do not provide special provisions for the word ‘killing’, the meaning of the word ‘killing’ should follow ordinary people’s understanding and should not be arbitrarily expanded or restricted in interpretation. As a daily language, the word "kill" includes the meaning of "kill", but the emphasis is on "harm", that is, the result of "death".

3. The word 'killing' appears many times in the criminal law, such as Articles 318, 321 of the Criminal Law, etc. 'Killing' is excluded from the category of 'causing someone to be organized' In addition to the serious injury or death of the person or the person being transported, another crime needs to be assessed separately, and several crimes must be punished together.

However, in the crime of kidnapping, ‘killing’ is combined with the death penalty. Therefore, the interpretation of the crime of kidnapping must be strictly controlled. According to the provisions of the old "New Law", the death penalty should not be applied in this case.

2. This case is classified as kidnapping, and there is no ‘imbalance between crime and punishment’.

The defender does not object to the application of concurrent punishment for several crimes in the crime of kidnapping. If the defendant Sun Dalin's injury methods are particularly cruel and cause serious disability to the victim, or if the murder attempt is particularly bad but the consequences are particularly serious and the crime should be sentenced to death, the defender believes that The killing and wounding behavior at this time should and must be evaluated separately. The defendant constitutes the crime of kidnapping and intentional injury (or intentional homicide), and shall be punished for several crimes.

If the above situation occurs, although the defendant cannot be sentenced to death for the crime of kidnapping, according to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law on the crime of intentional injury and intentional homicide, the court can sentence the defendant to death, so there is no imbalance between crime and punishment.

However, in this case, the defendant's behavior does not have the above conditions, and sentencing according to the crime of kidnapping will not lead to an imbalance between crime and punishment. "

…

"... This case has been reviewed by the collegial panel and a judgment has been formed. Based on the opinions of the prosecution and defense, combined with the focus of the dispute in this case, and based on the facts and evidence of this case, this court made the following comments:

This court believes that the defendant Sun Dalin killed the kidnapped person during the kidnapping process and caused serious injuries of Class B. His behavior constituted the crime of kidnapping and should be severely punished in accordance with the law. In accordance with the provisions of Article 239 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the court ruled : Sun Dalin was convicted of kidnapping, sentenced to death, and deprived of political rights for life. "The presiding judge pronounced the verdict.

After hearing the verdict, Sun Dalin slumped down in the dock. As the saying goes, "It is better to die than to live." Although he likes to get into trouble, it does not mean that he is also so persistent on the issue of death. Now the hope in his heart is gone.

Sun Dalin refused to accept the decision and expressed his intention to appeal in court. Fang Yi also felt that the death penalty in this case was too far-fetched and inconsistent with the law. After returning to the law firm, he began preparing for an appeal that afternoon.

A few days later, the criminal verdict came down. After Fang Yi drafted the appeal, he met with Sun Dalin again and confirmed his intention to appeal. Sun Dalin decisively signed the appeal. After leaving the detention center, Fang Yi submitted the appeal to the Central Government. hospital.

Soon after, the second trial of Luo Daying's robbery case was held in the Provincial High Court.

Fang Yi defended the case as a lesser crime, because neither the prosecution nor the defense nor the appellant had any dispute over the facts of the case, but only the sentencing, so the case was heard very quickly.

Fang Yi still insisted on the defense opinion of the first instance that the crime was light, and the prosecutor insisted that the sentence of the first instance was appropriate. After the trial, the presiding judge pronounced the verdict in court.

After hearing, the Provincial High Court held that: The court of first instance found that the criminal facts of the appellant Luo Daying who carried an ax and robbed bank depositors of RMB 500,000 were clear and the evidence was conclusive and sufficient, and it was confirmed in accordance with the law.

The behavior of the appellant Luo Daying constituted the crime of robbery. The original verdict was accurate and the trial procedure was legal. In view of the fact that the appellant Luo Daying did not cause any personal harm to the victim during the crime and did not resist with arms when being arrested. This case has not yet caused serious consequences. According to the principle of commensurate crime and punishment, the original verdict was sentenced. too heavy.

The appeal grounds and defense opinions of the appellant Luo Daying and his defender that the sentence was too harsh were established and accepted by this court. In accordance with Article 189 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 267 (2) and Article 263 (3) of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China , Item (4), Article 57 and Article 6 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Robbery Cases", the judgment is as follows:

1. Uphold the criminal judgment of the Intermediate People’s Court against defendant Luo Daying and cancel the sentencing part.

2. The appellant (defendant in the original trial) Luo Daying was convicted of robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, and confiscated all personal property.