Lawyer

"I think both the victim, Gu Chuanfu, and the defendant, Fang Yunlin, were at fault for the initiation of the case.

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

The victim was only 13 years old when they stole the cable together, and the victim was only 16 years old when he died. The defendant probably saw that he was young and easy to fool, so he didn't share the spoils with the victim. I think both parties were responsible for triggering the case.The defendant is likely to be sentenced to death. "Zhou Ying said, swallowing the ice cream in her mouth.

Yun Qiao and Zhou Ying are very good in one thing. As long as the case is discussed within the team, no matter whether it is right or not, the two dare to say that they are basically the first to speak every time, and they will never be cold.

In Zhou Ying's view, this is a rare opportunity to learn. Before everyone speaks, expressing their own ideas can prevent their thinking from being misled by other lawyers, and it is conducive to realizing their own shortcomings and improving their logical thinking.

Yun Qiao's idea was simpler. He felt that when his brother-in-law organized everyone to discuss issues, he must not be silent. No matter whether he thought about it or not, he must throw bricks and attract others. At the same time, he could verify his own ideas.

"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 victim Gu Chuanfu's behavior is not the victim's fault. Although Gu Chuanfu had violated the defendant Fang Yunlin's person and property, the reason was that the two had jointly stolen and shared the spoils unevenly, which was an internal strife caused by the joint criminals.

Gu Chuanfu’s behavior of threatening and forcibly taking property in order to ask for the stolen money was due to Fang Yunlin’s possession of the stolen money jointly stolen by the two, so it cannot be regarded as the fault of the victim.I reckon the court will sentence him to death. "Song Hui put down the ice cream and said.

"I agree with Lawyer Song's opinion." While expressing his opinion, Meng Guangda habitually stroked the short hair on the top of his head. This is his signature action and a symbol of self-confidence.

"Well, this case was caused by the defendant's intentional homicide due to the uneven distribution of spoils. The root cause is the stolen money, but the stolen money is not legal property. Shouldn't this be regarded as the victim's infringement of the defendant's property rights?" Du Yong scratched his head, obviously not yet clear, not sure.

"Master, what do you think?" Yun Qiao is still more used to calling Fang Yi Master in the law firm. After all, it is a workplace, so it is not appropriate to call brother-in-law.

"I agree with Lao Song's opinion that the victim's behavior of threatening the defendant to ask for the stolen money several times due to the uneven distribution of the stolen goods cannot be regarded as 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" refers to the victim's deliberate behavior that violates social ethics or violates the law, infringes on the legal rights or legitimate interests of the defendant, and causes the defendant to commit a crime or intensifies the harm caused by the injuring behavior.

I remember the "Minutes of the Symposium on Safeguarding Rural Stability by National Courts in Criminal Trials" stipulates that the death penalty for intentional homicide depends not only on whether the death of the victim is caused, but also on the overall circumstances of the case.

Lawyer Du, when we discussed a death penalty case you handled last time, 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, and was stabbed to death by the defendant. In the end, the court sentenced him to death with a reprieve.

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

For the first time, this summary clearly introduces the victim’s fault into the criminal sentencing system. This provision mainly considers that for criminal cases with obvious interactions such as intentional homicide and intentional injury, where the victim is obviously at fault for the initiation of the case or the intensification of conflicts, the defendant’s subjective viciousness is relatively small, which affects sentencing, especially in cases where the death penalty may be applied. "Du Yong replied.

"Yes, according to this minutes, the conditions for the victim to be at fault mainly include:
1. The criminal act of the defendant must be aimed at the victim who was at fault.

2. The victim must be intentional. Since the victim's fault usually occurs in crimes such as intentional homicide and intentional injury with obvious interaction, pure negligence or other behaviors that cannot be attributed to the victim cannot be identified as the victim's fault.

3. The victim must have committed serious violations of social ethics or laws.

The nature of the victim's fault is a violation of the law or morality, but not all faults can be evaluated by the criminal law. Only when they reach a certain degree of severity can they be included in the criminal law evaluation system and become discretionary sentencing circumstances.

The minutes clearly stipulate that the victim must have "obvious fault". As for whether it is obvious, it should usually be judged by ordinary people's understanding.

4. The victim's negligent behavior must have violated the legal rights or legitimate interests of the defendant.

The so-called "legitimate rights" are the interests that are clearly stipulated to be protected by the law, and the "legitimate interests" generally refer to the interests that are approved or recognized by the public according to social ethics, although they are not expressly stipulated by the law.

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

5. The victim's negligent behavior must be sufficient to cause the defendant to commit a criminal act or intensify the degree of harm caused by the injuring behavior.

The victim's negligent behavior may not only lead to the occurrence of a criminal crime, but also may intensify the contradictions in the crime, causing the defendant to increase the degree of harm.

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

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

On the side, Yun Qiao flew up and down with ten fingers in both hands, beating rhythmically on the keyboard, recording the opinions of everyone at the scene.

This record is not just a formality, as long as the case discussed at the meeting has a record, it is used to analyze the difference between the court's trial thinking and the team's opinion when the case is resumed after the case is judged.