Lawyer

Chapter 872 Death Penalty!

"It can be seen that the purpose of the defendant Guan Jiang's killing and silence is very clear. The subjective purpose of his violence is not to forcibly rob property, but simply to deprive others of his life. He has the intention of killing rather than robbery. deliberately.

In addition, for the same criminal facts of the perpetrator, the crime cannot be repeatedly judged; when the defendant's behavior has been evaluated as the factual basis of one crime, this factor cannot be evaluated as the factual basis of another crime.

The defendant in this case, Guan Jiang, only committed homicide, which has been evaluated as a constituent element of the crime of intentional homicide, and can no longer be used as a basis for determining the crime of robbery.

To sum up, the defendant in this case, Guan Jiang, committed murder for the purpose of silence during the theft, not premeditated intentional homicide for the purpose of robbing property or intentional homicide in order to subdue the victim’s resistance in the process of robbing property, and murder for the purpose of silence after the robbery. And intentionally kill.

The behavior of the defendant in this case did not comply with the provisions of the "Reply of the Supreme People's Court on How to Convict a Case of Intentional Homicide During Robbery" and also did not meet the requirements for the purpose of transforming robbery stipulated in Article 269 of the Criminal Law. Therefore, the behavior of the defendant in this case The crime of robbery and the crime of intentional homicide cannot be punished together, and the crime of intentional homicide should be convicted and sentenced.

In view of the fact that the defendant is a first-time offender and an occasional offender, the defender suggested that the defendant be sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve.complete. "

After Du Yong finished speaking, he looked up at the presiding judge, and then at Guan Jiang in the dock, who was still sobbing.

"The public prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinions." The presiding judge felt that both parties seemed to have something to say, so he said.

"Okay, regarding the defender's defense opinion, the public prosecutor's opinion is as follows:

According to the provisions of Article 263 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Robbery Cases, the "household robbery" stipulated in Item ([-]) of Article [-] of the Criminal Law refers to entering another person for the purpose of robbery. Living relatively isolated from the outside world, including closed courtyards, tents of herdsmen, fishing boats used by fishermen as family living places, and rented houses for living, etc.

For burglary, the act of using violence or threatening violence on the spot due to discovery shall be deemed as burglary.

According to the provisions of this judicial interpretation, as for the case of burglary, as long as it is discovered and violence is used on the spot, it should be deemed as burglary.

The behavior of the defendant in this case belongs to house burglary. Because he was discovered, the defendant Guan Jiang killed the victim in order to silence him, so it should be determined as house robbery.Therefore, this case should be characterized as robbery and intentional homicide.complete. "The prosecutor finished speaking and looked at the presiding judge.

"Defenders for the accused can respond to the public prosecutor's comments," the presiding judge said.

"Based on the Prosecutor's Defense Opinion and Responses, the Defense Counsel issued the following Defense Opinion:

The defender believes that the application of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Robbery Cases cannot be mechanically copied from the law, but should be applied by comprehensively considering the purpose and basis of its interpretation.In this case, the behavior of the defendant Guan Jiang should not be identified as house robbery, the specific reasons are as follows:

First of all, the problem to be solved by the above explanation is mainly how to understand the several situations of aggravating the statutory punishment stipulated in Article 263 of the "Criminal Law". The first article mainly explains the concept of "household" and what situations constitute "household robbery" The problem.

For burglary, the act of using violence or threatening violence on the spot due to being discovered should be identified as burglary. The characterization of theft as an act of violence by being discovered is carried out across the board.

Secondly, this interpretation is made in accordance with the Criminal Law, and cannot violate the basic requirements and legislative spirit of the Criminal Law when it is understood and applied.

According to the provisions of the "Criminal Law", the constitution of a crime must have all the constituent elements including the subjective and objective aspects, and insist on the unity of the subjective and the objective.

The judicial interpretation of the "Criminal Law" must be based on the provisions of the Criminal Law and be faithful to the legislative intent and spirit of the provisions of the "Criminal Law".

Therefore, the understanding of the provisions of the Interpretation on the transformation of "household theft" into "household robbery" should be based on the provisions of the "Criminal Law" on the transformation of robbery.

Article 269 of the "Criminal Law" has clearly stipulated that the prerequisites for transformation can only be three situations: concealing stolen goods, resisting arrest or destroying criminal evidence. Naturally, the provisions of the interpretation cannot go beyond these three situations.

Finally, judicial interpretations do not need to explain what is already clear and unambiguous in the provisions of the Criminal Law.Therefore, the above explanation does not repeatedly list these three situations, and it cannot be interpreted one-sidedly as all "household theft, use of violence or threat of violence on the spot due to discovery" just because the explanation does not clearly express these three situations. Regardless of the specific circumstances, they are all identified as home robbery.

In other words, if the defendant was discovered to burglary, he gave up the idea of ​​stealing because of the victim's beauty, and raped him with violence on the spot. It is obviously absurd to consider the rape as a house robbery without considering the subjective purpose of the perpetrator.

Therefore, when the above interpretation is applied, the conversion of home theft into home robbery must comply with the provisions of Article 269 of the Criminal Law on conversion into robbery.

If the defendant did not meet the three conditions stipulated in Article 269 of the "Criminal Law" when committing violence, the above explanation cannot be mechanically applied to determine his behavior as robbery.

Therefore, in this case, the defendant's behavior only constituted the crime of intentional homicide, not the crime of robbery.complete. "Du Yong replied.

……

After the adjournment of the trial, the collegial panel pronounced the verdict directly.

The Intermediate People's Court held that the defendant Guan Jiang was discovered during the theft, and the victim Guan Tong's neck was pinched and cut with a knife, causing the victim Guan Tong's death to constitute the crime of intentional homicide.According to the facts of the defendant Guan Jiang's crime, the nature and circumstances of the crime and the degree of harm to the society, in accordance with the provisions of Article 232 and Article [-] of the "Criminal Law", the judgment: the defendant Guan Jiang committed the crime of intentional homicide and was sentenced to death, deprivation Political rights for life.

After the verdict was pronounced, Guan Jiang lay paralyzed on the dock and was dragged out of the courtroom by the bailiff.Zhang Shuilan, Guan Jiang's mother in the auditorium, passed out in distress. After a lot of rescue, Zhang Shuilan slowly opened her eyes, her tears couldn't stop flowing down, and she couldn't say a word.

With the help of Du Yong and Yun Qiao, Guan Jibao helped his wife out of the court and into Du Yong's Jetta.Seeing Guan Jibao's daughter-in-law like this, Du Yong couldn't bear it and decided to drive them back.

　Two updates today!
　　
　
(End of this chapter)