Lawyer's character

Defendant Zhao Sixi and his defender acknowledged the facts and charges of the crime, and suggested that defendant Zhao Sixi had a better attitude of pleading guilty after being brought to justice, and suggested that the court give a lighter punishment.

The defendant Wu Meifeng insisted that she had no intention of kidnapping and that she was deceived by Zhao Sixi into helping.

"Defendant Wu Meifeng, the defendant, expressed his defense opinion." the presiding judge said.

"Presiding Judge, Judge: The defender believes that although the defendant Wu Meifeng and the defendant Zhao Sixi jointly committed the act of kidnapping the victim Chen Yue, there is no joint crime between the defendants Wu Meifeng and Zhao Sixi for the following reasons:

Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Criminal Law clearly stipulates that joint crime refers to a joint intentional crime committed by two or more people. To establish a joint crime, three conditions must be met at the same time:

The first condition is that the criminal subjects must be two or more people who have reached the age of criminal responsibility and have the ability to be criminally responsible.

The second condition is that the criminal subjects have a common criminal intention.

The third condition is that the criminal subjects have common criminal behavior.

In this case, both defendants have reached the age of criminal responsibility and have the ability to be criminally responsible, and both meet the first condition above.

The second condition, joint criminal intention, is the subjective element that constitutes a joint crime. If several people who lack joint criminal intention commit the same type of crime against the same object at the same time, they only commit the same crime at the same time, not a joint crime.

In a joint crime, when two people commit crimes that support and assist each other against the same object at the same time, if the criminal intent of both parties is different and there is no common criminal intent, it cannot constitute a joint crime.

In this case, the defendant Zhao Sixi lied to the defendant Wu Meifeng that someone owed him a debt and would not repay it, and persuaded Wu Meifeng to bring his daughter to force her to repay the debt.

Wu Meifeng mistakenly believed that Zhao Sixi kidnapped the victim Chen Yue to collect debts, but did not know that Zhao Sixi's real purpose was to extort property.

Although Wu Meifeng and Zhao Sixi jointly committed the crime of kidnapping the victim Chen Yue (meeting the third condition of joint crime), because she subjectively believed that the kidnapping of Chen Yue was to collect debts from her father, the content of her criminal intention was different from that of the defendant. Zhao Sixi is completely different. The two defendants did not have a common criminal intention. Therefore, they did not constitute a joint crime of kidnapping and could only be convicted and sentenced separately according to the crimes they constituted.

In this case, the defendant Wu Meifeng should be guilty of illegal detention. The defender recommended that defendant Wu Meifeng be given a suspended sentence. complete. "Fang Yi said.

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

“Regarding the defense of the defender, our views are as follows:

In this case, although the defendant Zhao Sixi had the intention to deceive the defendant Wu Meifeng, the debt Zhao Sixi mentioned was not a real debt, but a fictitious debt.

Regardless of the provisions of Article 238, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law, or the provisions on illegal debts in the previous judicial interpretations of the Supreme Court, real debts need to exist, and the debts in this case are fictitious. Wu Meifeng used fictitious debts as fictitious debts. The debt was for a criminal purpose and did not comply with the provisions of the appeal law. Therefore, we believe that the behavior of the defendant Wu Meifeng constituted the crime of kidnapping and was an accessory. complete. "The prosecutor said.

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

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

Although there is actually no legal creditor-debt relationship between the defendant Zhao Sixi and the victim’s father Chen Shouyi in this case, nor does there exist any creditor-debt relationship that is not protected by law such as loan sharking and gambling debts.

However, Wu Meifeng did help Zhao Sixi carry out the kidnapping for the purpose of collecting debts because she was deceived and did not know it. Moreover, after committing the crime, Zhao Sixi did not tell Wu Meifeng her true purpose. Subjectively, Wu Meifeng only had the intention of illegal detention and not the intention of kidnapping. , Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 238, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Criminal Law, Wu Meifeng’s behavior conforms to the characteristics of the crime of illegal detention for debt collection. Wu Meifeng should be charged with illegal detention. complete. "Fang Yi said.

…

After the trial, the presiding judge pronounced the verdict in court.

The collegial panel held that the defendant Zhao Sixi kidnapped others for the purpose of extorting property, and after committing the kidnapping, made a phone call to extort property. His behavior constituted the crime of kidnapping.

Defendant Wu Meifeng credulously believed defendant Zhao Sixi's lies about taking hostages to collect debts, and under the control of this understanding, assisted Zhao Sixi in illegally detaining children. His behavior constituted the crime of illegal detention.

The facts of the public prosecution's charge of kidnapping against Zhao Sixi are clear, the evidence is reliable and sufficient, and the charges are correct and supported. It accuses Wu Meifeng of kidnapping. Because Wu Meifeng subjectively has no intention or purpose of kidnapping and extorting property, the charges are not valid. accurate and should be corrected.

Zhao Sixi's defender proposed that Zhao Sixi had a better attitude of pleading guilty after being brought to justice and could be given a lighter punishment. After investigation, although Zhao Sixi was able to truthfully confess the facts of his crime after being brought to justice, the means, consequences and social impact of his crime were not enough to warrant a lighter punishment.

The defendant Wu Meifeng argued that she had no intention to kidnap and her defender suggested that Wu Meifeng's behavior was carried out when she was deceived. She had little subjective viciousness. She had a good attitude of pleading guilty after being brought to justice and showed remorse, so she could be given a lighter punishment.

After investigation, Wu Meifeng committed the crime under the deliberate control of Zhao Sixi, who lied about taking hostages and extorting debts. After committing the crime, Zhao Sixi did not tell Wu Meifeng her true purpose. Wu Meifeng subjectively only had the intention of illegal detention and not the intention of kidnapping. His arguments and defense opinions were established and adopted.

In the end, the Intermediate Court ruled: 1. The defendant Zhao Sixi was guilty of kidnapping and was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, and confiscated property. 2. The defendant Wu Meifeng was guilty of illegal detention and was sentenced to three years in prison.

After the verdict was announced, Zhao Sixi's body went limp and he collapsed. The bailiffs on both sides had quick eyesight and quick hands, and immediately stretched out their arms to lift him up.

Wu Meifeng's expectation was to be sentenced to ten years in prison, but she was ultimately sentenced to three years. Offsetting the time she had spent in custody before, the actual time she needed to serve was only about two years and ten months. After the dust settled, she felt much lighter.

Because Zhao Sixi's family has been negotiating with the victim's family about compensation after the incident and during the trial, the Zhao family hopes that the Chen family can issue a letter of understanding. However, the Chen family hated Zhao Sixi and felt that the money provided by the Zhao family was too little and refused to issue a letter of understanding. The two families had been discussing exchanging money for a letter of understanding, so the Chen family did not file a criminal incidental civil lawsuit.

After the verdict was announced, Zhao Sixi was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Zhao family had no intention of paying compensation, so they could pay whatever they wanted. The Chen family felt they had been cheated and filed a civil lawsuit.

In the end, the court ruled that Zhao Sixi and Wu Meifeng should compensate the Chen family for economic losses of 3,892 yuan (including 3,500 yuan for victim Chen Yue's medical expenses, 392 yuan for nursing expenses and lost work expenses).