Lawyer

"The defendant's defender can ask the defendant questions?" said the judge.

"Defendant Liu Meng, have you seen this kind of wire connecting households before?" Fang Yi asked.

"I've seen it. There are many such lines in our village. I see them often, and I'm used to them." Liu Meng thought for a while.

Fang Yi asked this question because he wanted to tell the judge that this kind of registration line at the place where the crime happened is very common in rural areas. Cognitively speaking, the set-up line is safe.Even if a super-high modified car hits the set wire, there will be no risk of electric shock under normal circumstances.

……

"The facts of this case have been investigated clearly, the court investigation is over, and the court debate is now beginning. The court debate mainly revolves around the disputed facts that have not been certified by the court and how to apply the law based on the facts.

Let the prosecutor speak first. " said the judge.

"Judge: The public prosecutor believes that the defendant Liu Meng modified the vehicle in violation of regulations to make the height of the vehicle exceed the height stipulated in the traffic management regulations. He should have foreseen that certain harmful results may occur during the driving process and should have taken necessary preventive measures.

However, the defendant was negligent in observing the surrounding environment when parking the car on the day of the incident, and did not foresee the possible harmful results that should have been foreseen. He was at fault subjectively and objectively caused the serious consequences of the death of the victim, so he should bear criminal responsibility , so we believe that the defendant Liu Meng committed the crime of negligent death.It is recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison.complete. "The male prosecutor spoke.

……

"Defendant Liu Meng's defender issued a defense opinion." The judge said.

"Judge: The defender believes that although the defendant Liu Meng caused the death of the victim Liu Liangzhu, subjectively, he had neither intention nor negligence. There is no causal relationship in the criminal law, the death of the victim Liu Liangzhu was an accident, and the defendant Liu Meng should not bear criminal responsibility for the consequences. The specific reasons are as follows:
[-]. Defendant Liu Meng was subjectively not at fault for the consequences of the victim's electrocution death
Article No. 15 of the "Criminal Law" stipulates that one should foresee that one's own behavior may cause socially harmful results, but fails to foresee due to negligence, or has foreseen and credulously believes that it can be avoided, so that such results occur, it is a negligent crime.Criminal negligence includes: negligent negligence and overconfident negligence.

([-]) Defendant Liu Meng was not negligent or negligent.

The negligence of negligence refers to the psychological state that the perpetrator should have foreseen that his behavior may cause harm to the society, but he did not foresee it due to negligence.This negligence includes three elements:
1. The perpetrator should foresee that his behavior may cause harmful results to society.

2. The perpetrator did not foresee that his behavior might cause socially harmful results.

3. The perpetrator's lack of awareness of the possible harmful results and his failure to foresee them are caused by his own negligence.

In this case, although the defendant Liu Meng welded the canopy on the carriage privately, which caused the height of the agricultural vehicle to exceed the standard height, the defendant was concerned that the lighting wires connected between households at the location where the case occurred did not meet the requirements for safe power use height, and Partial nudity exists, which is not foreseeable.

According to the evidence on file, the height of the fire wire between households at the location of the crime is only 220cm from the ground (the legal minimum height should be 250cm), even if the professional maintenance personnel of the power company have not measured it, they may not The height of the foreseeable line of fire from the ground does not meet the requirements.

As an ordinary person, when Liu Meng parked his tricycle at the scene of the crime, he had no obligation and could not have foreseen that the wires at the place where the crime occurred did not meet the requirements for the distance from the ground to the safe use of electricity, and it was even more impossible to foresee that the sheath of the wires would be damaged. The case where the wire core is exposed.

In addition, according to the experience of ordinary people, when parking under the normal low-voltage lighting circuit, there will be no accidents that the car body is electrified.

The defendant, Liu Meng, did not stop the vehicle on the road with frequent passing vehicles in violation of the regulations to let the victim get off the car, but turned into a villager's house that he thought was relatively safe to let the victim get off the car. He had done everything necessary for the personal safety of the passengers on the car. There is no negligence in the obligation of safety precautions.

([-]) The defendant was not at fault for being overconfident
The negligence of overconfidence refers to the subjective psychological state that the perpetrator has foreseen that his behavior may cause harm to the society, but credulously believes that it can be avoided.

In this case, the defendant Liu Meng had no obligation, and it was impossible to foresee that when he parked at the scene of the crime, the awning of the carriage would happen to meet the exposed wires that did not meet the height requirements for safe electricity use to the ground, and the insulation measures failed.Therefore, it is impossible to have the problem of "credulity can be avoided". Therefore, the defendant does not have the fault of being overconfident subjectively.

[-]. There is no causal relationship between defendant Liu Meng's behavior of modifying agricultural vehicles without authorization and the consequences of the victim Liu Liangzhu's electrocution death.

The causal relationship in criminal law refers to the direct and inevitable relationship between the perpetrator's harmful behavior and the harmful consequences.

Only when the perpetrator's harmful behavior plays a direct and decisive role in the occurrence of the harmful result, there is a causal relationship between the harmful behavior and the harmful consequence in criminal law.

In this case, although the defendant Liu Meng modified the vehicle privately, the height of the vehicle violated the provisions of the traffic management regulations.

However, this act of the defendant itself could not directly cause the consequences of Liu Liangzhu's death, nor was it the direct cause of Liu Liangzhu's death by electrocution.

According to the evidence in the case, Liu Liangzhu died of electric shock. The direct cause of the electric shock was that the height of the lighting line at the crime site did not meet the distance from the household line to the ground for safe use of electricity, and the insulation of the wire was damaged, which led to discharge at the exposed part of the wire.

The metal pole of the awning of the defendant Liu Meng's agricultural vehicle happened to touch the exposed part of the wire that did not meet the safety height and became charged, which led to the accident of Liu Liangzhu's death by electrocution.

Therefore, there is no necessary and direct internal connection between defendant Liu Meng's behavior of modifying vehicles in violation of regulations and the consequences of the death of victim Liu Liangzhu. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between the defendant's behavior and the death of victim Liu Liangzhu in criminal law.

To sum up, although the defendant Liu Meng's behavior of modifying the vehicle to violate regulations and exceed the height has a certain connection with the result of the victim Liu Liangzhu's death by electrocution, there is no causal relationship between his behavior and the consequences of the victim Liu Liangzhu's death in criminal law, and subjectively There is no fault.

Liu Liangzhu's death by electrocution was caused by reasons that the defendant Liu Meng could not foresee, and it was an accident. Therefore, the defendant Liu Meng did not constitute a crime.complete. After Fang Yi delivered his defense opinion, he looked at the judge.

……