Lawyer

Chapter 545 Deception!
The defendant Zhao Sixi and his defenders agreed with the facts and charges of the crime, and suggested that the defendant Zhao Sixi had a good 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 tricked by Zhao Sixi into helping her.

"Defendant Wu Meifeng's defender, express 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 carried out the act of kidnapping the victim Chen Yue, there is no joint crime between the defendant Wu Meifeng and the defendant Zhao Sixi. The reasons are as follows:
The first paragraph of Article 20 of No. [-] of the "Criminal Law" clearly stipulates that a joint crime refers to a joint intentional crime 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 subject of the crime must be two or more persons who have reached the age of criminal responsibility and have the capacity for criminal responsibility.

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

The third condition is that the subject of the crime has common criminal behavior.

In this case, the age of the two defendants has reached the age of criminal responsibility, and has the capacity for criminal responsibility, and both meet the first condition above.

The second condition, joint criminal intention, is the subjective element of joint crime. Several people who lack joint criminal intention commit the same crime against the same object at the same time, and they only commit simultaneous crimes, not joint crimes.

In a joint crime, when two people commit crimes of mutual support and assistance to the same object at the same time, if the content of the criminal intentions of the two parties is different and there is no common criminal intention, it cannot constitute a joint crime.

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

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

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

In this case, the defendant Wu Meifeng should constitute the crime of illegal detention.The defender suggested probation for Wu Meifeng, the defendant.complete. "Fang Yi said.

"The public prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinion." The presiding judge said.

"With regard to the defender's defense, 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.

Whether it is the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 230 of the "Criminal Law" or the previous provisions on illegal debts in the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court, there must be real debts, and the debts in this case are fictitious, and Wu Meifeng used the fictitious debts as the purpose of the crime. , does not conform to the provisions of the appeal law, so we believe that the behavior of the defendant Wu Meifeng constitutes the crime of kidnapping and is an accessory.complete. " said the inspector.

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

"In response to the Prosecutor's defense opinion and response, the defender issued the following defense opinion:

Although in this case, the defendant Zhao Sixi and the victim's father Chen Shouyi did not actually have a legal creditor-debt relationship, nor did there exist creditor-debt relationships not protected by law such as usury and gambling debts.

But Wu Meifeng did not know about being deceived, and helped Zhao Sixi carry out the kidnapping for the purpose of collecting debts, and after committing the crime, Zhao Sixi did not tell Wu Meifeng her real purpose. Wu Meifeng only had the intention of illegal detention subjectively, not the intention of kidnapping Therefore, according to the first and third paragraphs of Article 230 of the "Criminal Law", Wu Meifeng's behavior conforms to the characteristics of the crime of debt collection type illegal detention.Wu Meifeng should constitute the crime of illegal detention.complete. "Fang Yi said.

……

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

The collegial panel held that the defendant, Zhao Sixi, kidnapped others for the purpose of extorting property, and after carrying out the kidnapping act, made phone calls to extort property, which constituted the crime of kidnapping.

Defendant Wu Meifeng credulously believed in defendant Zhao Sixi's lie about taking hostages for debt collection. Under the control of this knowledge, she assisted Zhao Sixi in illegally detaining children, which constituted the crime of illegal detention.

The facts of the prosecution’s accusation of Zhao Sixi’s crime of kidnapping are clear, the evidence is solid and sufficient, and the accusation is correct, which is supported; Wu Meifeng’s accusation of kidnapping, because Wu Meifeng subjectively has no intention or purpose of kidnapping and extorting property, so the accusation is not true. Yes, it should be corrected.

Zhao Sixi's defenders suggested that Zhao Sixi had a good attitude of pleading guilty after being brought to justice, so he could be given a lighter punishment.After investigation, Zhao Sixi was able to truthfully confess the facts of his crime after being brought to justice, but the means, consequences and social impact of his crime were not enough to give him a lighter punishment.

The defendant, Wu Meifeng, argued that she had no intention of kidnapping, and her defender pointed out that Wu Meifeng's behavior was carried out under the circumstances of being deceived. The subjective malignity was small, and 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 Zhao Sixi's deliberate dominance of claiming to seize the hostages and collect debts. Its defense and defense opinions are established and accepted.

The final judgment of the intermediate court: [-]. The defendant Zhao Sixi committed the crime of kidnapping and was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of property.[-]. The defendant, Wu Meifeng, committed the crime of illegal detention and was sentenced to three years in prison.

After the verdict was pronounced, Zhao Sixi's body softened and he collapsed.The bailiffs on both sides had sharp eyes and quick hands, and immediately stretched out their arms to support him.

Wu Meifeng expected to be sentenced to ten years in prison, but she was finally sentenced to three years, which was offset by the previous time in custody, and the real time to serve the sentence was only about two years and ten months.After the dust settled, she felt much lighter.

Because Zhao Sixi's family had been negotiating compensation with the victim's family after the incident and during the trial, the Zhao family hoped that the Chen family could issue a letter of understanding.But the Chen family hated Zhao Sixi, and felt that the Zhao family had paid too little money and refused to issue a letter of understanding. The two families had been talking about exchanging money for a letter of understanding, so the Chen family did not file a criminal incidental civil lawsuit.

After the verdict was pronounced, Zhao Sixi was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the Zhao family had no intention of compensating, so let's do whatever they want.The Chen family felt that they had been cheated, so they 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 890 yuan (including 390 yuan for the victim Chen Yue's medical expenses, [-] yuan for nursing expenses and loss of work).

(End of this chapter)