Lawyer's character

“I think both the victim Gu Chuanfu and the defendant Fang Yunlin were at fault for triggering the case.

Although Gu Chuanfu's behavior threatened the personal and property safety of defendant Fang Yunlin, the reason was that defendant Fang Yunlin had instigated minors to participate in theft.

When the two stole the cable together, the victim was only thirteen years old, and the victim was sixteen when he died. The defendant probably thought that he was easy to fool because of his young age, so he did not share the stolen goods with the victim. I think both parties were responsible for triggering the case. Be responsible. The defendant will most likely be sentenced to death. Zhou Ying said as she swallowed the ice cream in her mouth.

Yun Qiao and Zhou Ying have one thing that is particularly good. As long as the team is discussing a case, no matter whether it is right or not, the two of them are very courageous to speak out. They are basically the first to speak every time, and they are never silent.

In Zhou Ying's view, this is a rare opportunity to learn. Speaking your thoughts before everyone speaks can prevent your thoughts from being distorted by other lawyers, and is conducive to recognizing your own shortcomings and improving your logical thinking. .

Yun Qiao's idea is simpler. He feels that when his brother-in-law organizes everyone to discuss issues, he must not remain silent. Regardless of whether he has thought about it well or not, he must make suggestions. At the same time, he can also test his own ideas. After all, he has just obtained the certificate, and he is not afraid of being laughed at if he makes mistakes. .

"Old Song, what do you think?" Fang Yi ate the ice cream and looked at Song Hui, who was holding the ice cream thoughtfully.

"I don't think so. The behavior of the victim Gu Chuanfu is not the victim's fault. Although Gu Chuanfu once violated the person and property of the defendant Fang Yunlin, the reason was that the two had committed a theft together and the uneven distribution of the stolen goods was caused by the artificial sharing of the stolen goods by joint criminals. of internal strife.

Gu Chuanfu's behavior of threatening and forcibly taking property in order to demand the stolen money could not be considered the victim's fault because Fang Yunlin possessed the stolen money jointly stolen by the two of them. Fang Yunlin also did not have any statutory or discretionary mitigating circumstances. He is also a repeat offender and should be severely punished in accordance with the law. I guess the court will sentence him to death. "Song Hui said as he put down the ice cream.

"I agree with Lawyer Song's opinion." While expressing his position, Meng Guangda habitually smoothed the small hair on his head. This is his signature action and a symbol of confidence.

"Well, this case was caused by the defendant's intentional homicide due to uneven distribution of the stolen goods. The root cause was the stolen money. However, the stolen money is not legal property. This should not be regarded as the victim's infringement of the defendant's property rights, right?" Du Yong scratched his head, obviously still I haven't thought it through, so I'm not sure.

"Master, what do you think?" Yun Qiao still prefers to call Fang Yi Master in the law firm. After all, this is a workplace, and calling him brother-in-law is not appropriate.

"I agree with Lao Song's opinion. The victim's behavior of threatening the defendant several times to demand stolen money due to uneven distribution of the stolen money cannot be considered the victim's fault." Fang Yi replied.

"Is it because the victim is recovering stolen money?" Zhou Ying asked.

"Well. The victim's fault in the sense of the Criminal Law means that the victim intentionally carries out behavior that violates social ethics or violates the law, infringes upon the defendant's legal rights or legitimate interests, causes the defendant to commit a crime or intensifies the harmful behavior. extent of the situation.

I remember that the "Minutes of the National Court Symposium on Maintaining Rural Stability and Criminal Trial Work" stipulated that whether to impose the death penalty for intentional homicide must not only determine whether the death of the victim was caused, but also comprehensively consider all the circumstances of the case.

Lawyer Du, last time we discussed a death penalty case you handled, I remember we mentioned this minutes. Do you still remember it? "Fang Yi looked at Du Yong.

"I have an impression. In that case, the victim was at fault and deliberately provoked trouble. He was stabbed to death by the defendant. In the end, the court sentenced him to a suspended death sentence.

I remember that the minutes stipulated that if the victim has obvious fault or is directly responsible for the intensification of the conflict, or the defendant has statutory mitigating circumstances, the death penalty should generally not be imposed immediately. In that case, I used this minutes to defend the defendant.

This minutes clearly introduces the victim's fault into the criminal sentencing system for the first time. This provision is mainly to consider criminal cases with very obvious interactions such as intentional homicide and intentional injury. If the victim is obviously at fault for triggering the case or intensifying the conflict, the defendant's Subjective malignancy is relatively small and thus affects sentencing, especially in cases where the death penalty may be applicable. " Du Yong replied.

“Yes, according to this summary, the main conditions for the victim’s fault are:

1. The defendant’s criminal behavior must be directed at the victim who committed the wrongful act.

2. The victim must do it intentionally. Since the victim's fault usually appears in crimes such as intentional homicide and intentional injury with obvious interactive nature, simple negligent behavior or other behaviors that cannot be attributed to the victim cannot be determined as the victim's fault.

3. The victim must have committed a relatively serious act that violates social ethics or violates the law.

The nature of the victim's fault is behavior that violates the law or violates morals. However, not all faults can be evaluated by the criminal law. Only when they reach a certain degree of seriousness can they be included in the criminal law evaluation system and become a discretionary sentencing circumstance.

The minutes clearly stipulate that the victim must have "obvious fault." As to whether it is obvious or not, the standard should usually be based on ordinary people's understanding of the fault.

4. The victim’s wrongful act must have violated the defendant’s legal rights or legitimate interests.

The so-called ‘legitimate rights’ are interests that are clearly protected by the law. ‘Legitimate interests’ generally refer to interests that are not expressly stipulated in the law but are approved or recognized by the public based on social ethics.

If the victim's illegal or bad behavior infringes upon the defendant's legal rights or legitimate interests, and the defendant commits a crime against the victim, the degree of criminal punishment the defendant should receive will be relatively reduced.

5. The victim's faulty behavior must be sufficient to cause the defendant to commit a criminal act or to intensify the harm of the injurious act.

The victim's wrongful behavior may not only trigger a criminal offense, but also intensify conflicts during the crime, causing the defendant to increase the degree of harm.

The victim's faulty behavior and the defendant's criminal behavior must have a causal connection between causing and being caused.

The above five articles are the main standards for judging the victim's fault in judicial practice. You can refer to and apply them when encountering similar cases in the future. "Fang Yi said.

On the side, Yun Qiao's ten fingers flew up and down, tapping rhythmically on the keyboard, recording the opinions of everyone present.

This record is not just a formality, as long as it is a record of the cases discussed at the meeting, it is used to analyze the differences between the court's trial thinking and the team's opinions during the review after the case is judged.