Lawyer

Chapter 624 Public property or personal property?

"I didn't do it on purpose. I went to the traffic police to steal my car, not to kill someone. I refuse to accept the death penalty from the court of first instance..." Mao Dewen kept shouting nervously. With his "help", he calmed down.

"The appellant's defense lawyer announced the reasons for the appeal." After the presiding judge finished speaking, he looked at the defense bench.

". The defender believes that the facts identified by the court of first instance were unclear, the characterization was inaccurate, and the sentence was too heavy. The appellant did not constitute a crime of robbery. The appellant secretly entered the traffic police team and was about to drive away his own vehicle, which did not have the purpose of robbery. , and did not commit robbery, which does not constitute the crime of robbery, nor does his behavior constitute theft. During the process, the appellant used violence to cause casualties, which should constitute the crime of intentional injury.

The behavior of the appellant is not an extremely serious crime, and the death penalty should not be applied immediately. I implore the court to give the appellant a lenient punishment.complete. "Fang Yi said.

In the next questioning session, the prosecutor and Fang Yi asked the appellant separately, but because the appellant had already collapsed and his logic was confused, he answered some basic facts of the case in pieces.Most of the time, the person asking the question and the person being asked are not on the same frequency at all, which is very uncomfortable.

Afterwards, cross-examination of evidence was carried out, because none of the three parties submitted new evidence, so the procedure progressed quickly...

……

"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. The debate should focus on determining charges, sentencing and other controversial issues.

First, the appellant Mao Dewen will defend himself. "The presiding judge said expressionlessly.

Mao Dewen's self-defense was still so elegant and crazy, and tears flowed out as if he didn't want money. He wanted to hug the presiding judge's thigh, shake his snot, and beg the old man to let him go.

With the "help" of the presiding judge and the bailiff, Mao Dewen finally stopped speaking illogically while sobbing.

"The defender of the appellant Mao Dewen made a speech." The presiding judge said expressionlessly.

"The presiding judge, the judge: the defender believes that the appellant Mao Dewen secretly drove away the Mercedes-Benz that was seized by the public security traffic management agency in accordance with the law without going through any formalities, and the ownership belongs to Mao Dewen. During the process of driving, the act of using violence to cause casualties constitutes the crime of intentional injury.

The court of first instance held that the appellant Mao Dewen’s behavior violated Article 260 of the Criminal Law, which constituted the theft of stolen goods and the use of violence on the spot to cause death. Wrong application of law.The reasons are as follows:
[-]. The act of the appellant Mao Dewen secretly driving away his impounded Mercedes-Benz from the traffic police compound did not constitute theft.

First, Mao Dewen did not have the purpose of illegal possession.

In this case, the reason why Mao Dewen's Mercedes-Benz was confiscated was that he drove the Mercedes-Benz on the road without a driver's license, which violated the "Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Road Traffic Management" regarding "motor vehicle drivers driving vehicles." When traveling, you need to bring your driver's license and driving license'.

However, according to Article [-] of the "Supplementary Provisions on Traffic Management Punishment Procedures", after the public security traffic management agency temporarily seizes a vehicle, it shall return it to the person or the relevant unit, except for the vehicle that has been confiscated according to law.

According to the above stipulations, the "temporary seizure of vehicles" is only an administrative coercive measure taken by the public security and traffic management organs in a short period of time to violations or accident vehicles. It does not belong to administrative punishment, nor does it belong to confiscation or confiscation.

Before the temporarily detained vehicle has not been dealt with, the public security traffic management agency is only responsible for the custody of the temporarily detained vehicle, and does not enjoy any other rights. The ownership of the vehicle should still belong to the owner of the vehicle.Therefore, after Mao Dewen's Mercedes-Benz was confiscated, the ownership of the car still belonged to Mao Dewen himself.

Second, the appellant Mao Dewen only took away his Mercedes-Benz secretly in the traffic police yard, and did not steal or damage any other public or private property.Therefore, Mao Dewen's behavior does not constitute theft.

Article 260 of the "Criminal Law" should not apply to Mao Dewen's act of causing death in the process of secretly driving away his impounded Mercedes-Benz.Because the premise of applying Article 260 of the Criminal Law is that the appellant must have committed the crime of theft, fraud or snatching.

In this case, from the beginning to the end, Mao Dewen did not have the purpose of illegal possession subjectively, nor did he commit any acts of theft, fraud, or snatching objectively, so there was no possibility of his behavior turning into robbery.

[-]. According to the evidence in the case, Mao Dewen entered the courtyard of the traffic police team on the night of the incident without carrying any murder weapon.After entering the scene, he took out the spare key of the Mercedes-Benz car and prepared to drive the car away. Therefore, Mao Dewen's purpose was to drive away the vehicle that was seized.

When the appellant was about to secretly drive away the Mercedes-Benz, he was discovered and stopped by the staff on duty, which was beyond the appellant's expectation.In order to drive away his impounded Mercedes-Benz as soon as possible, although Mao Dewen used violence against the on-duty personnel, from the appellant's subjective point of view, his real intention was to exclude the victim from preventing him from secretly driving away the Mercedes-Benz.

The appellant, Mao Dewen, did not have the motive for the murder, nor did he have the intention to hope or allow the consequences of the victim's death, but Mao Dewen knew that his actions would cause harm to the victim.Therefore, Mao Dewen's act of causing casualties in the process of secretly driving away his impounded Mercedes-Benz constituted the crime of intentional injury.

In view of the fact that the appellant Mao Dewen was a first-time offender with little social harm, and after being brought to justice, he truthfully confessed that his family compensated the victim's family. The defender requested the High Court to amend the sentence in accordance with the law and suggested that the appellant be sentenced to life imprisonment.complete! After Fang Yi finished his defense, he glanced at Mao Dewen in the dock, who was still sobbing.

"Now it's up to the prosecutor to speak," said the presiding judge.

"The presiding judge and judges: We believe that the court of first instance found the facts clearly, applied the law correctly, and sentenced the sentence appropriately. Please the court reject the appellant's appeal according to the law. Finished." The prosecutor said.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinion." The presiding judge finished speaking and looked at the public prosecutor's seat.

"In response to the defender's defense, we mainly express the following points of view:

According to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article No.90 of the "Criminal Law", private property in the management, use or transportation of state organs, state-owned companies, enterprises, collective enterprises and people's organizations is considered public property.

The Mercedes-Benz involved in this case is a vehicle seized by the traffic management department in accordance with the law. It belongs to the private property managed by the state agency in the above provisions and should be regarded as public property.

The appellant's unauthorized stealing of the impounded Mercedes-Benz car is the theft of public property, so the appellant's behavior should be regarded as theft.

According to Article 260 of the "Criminal Law" who commits the crime of theft and uses violence on the spot to conceal stolen goods, resist arrest or destroy criminal evidence, he shall be convicted and punished in accordance with Article 260 of the "Criminal Law" for the crime of robbery.

To sum up, we believe that the appellant used violence to cause death in the process of stealing the Mercedes-Benz, and his act constituted the crime of robbery.Therefore, the facts ascertained by the court of first instance were clear, the application of the law was correct, and the sentencing was appropriate.complete. "The inspector responded to Fang Yi's opinion in a cadenced manner.

(End of this chapter)