As a Lawyer, You Sent the Judge In?

Chapter 323: Classic question, you have no intention of killing anyone, why do you say that?

 Hand in court.

Su Bai and Li Xuezhen were brought into court for hearing by relevant staff.

 All parties are seated.

 For this case of Fang Rufeng.

 All parties entering the court have their own preparations for the outcome of the case.

On the trial bench, Lin Fengru, as the presiding judge, looked at the appellant’s seat.

 Then he looked away again, and a plain voice sounded in the courtroom:

“The above-mentioned person, Fang Rufeng, believed that the judgment of the court of first instance was wrong and lodged an appeal.”

“This case is handled by our court’s Shadu Intermediate People’s Court, which is responsible for hearing the retrial application filed in Fang Rufeng’s case.”

“The prosecution crime filed by Rufeng, the prosecutor, is preparation for the crime of intentional homicide.”

“Now please state the appellant’s reasons and relevant factual evidence.”

 “A good judge.”

Su Bai nodded and began to entrust a lawyer as the appellant to state the appeal request:

“Our opinion above is that we do not agree with the judgment of the first instance on our client.”

 “The reasons are as follows:”

“Criminal preparation should be based on Article 22 of the Criminal Law to create tools and conditions for crime preparation, which is crime preparation.”

“Moreover, according to the understanding and application of the express provisions in the criminal law, preparation for crime must meet four conditions—

　　1: Subjectively for the purpose of committing a crime.

　　2: Objectively committing criminal preparatory acts.

 Three: In fact, the crime has not been committed.

 4: The failure to commit the crime is caused by reasons beyond the will of the perpetrator. "

“The application of criminal preparation must be based on the above four conditions.”

“Presiding judge, let me first state the facts of the situation here.”

“The facts of the situation at that time were that our client discovered that Xie Tingting was cheating on his wife, and out of anger, he expressed his intention to kill Xie Tingting.”

“In this case, our client objectively did not commit any act to prepare for the crime.”

“In addition, our client had a big quarrel with Xie Tingting, and Xie Tingting returned to her natal home.”

“After that, we called the police and filed a case. During this process, we did not do anything else.”

“There are no preparatory facts or conditions for the crime, that is, it does not constitute the necessary conditions for the preparation of the crime.”

“Based on the above, we believe that the first-instance judgment should be revoked and we should be acquitted instead.”

“The chief judge is our above-mentioned request.”

 Su Bai made a simple statement.

Immediately afterwards, Lin Fengru, as the presiding judge, turned to look at the prosecutor and victim seats at the trial table.

“The collegial panel has heard the above-mentioned person’s application and demands, and now the prosecutor is invited to make a relevant statement on the case.”

 “A good judge.”

Prosecutor Wu Chunmei nodded and spoke.

Wu Chunmei, as the prosecutor in the first trial, continued to press charges in the second trial this time.

certainly.…

This time, Su Bai did not apply for recusal because he felt it was completely unnecessary.

When Xu Bo was a prosecutor, Su Bai applied for recusal because this was an unjust, false and wrong case.

 It can be seen from the files at that time that Xu Bo was very extreme in his accusations.

 The statements made by Wu Chunmei in the first-instance dossier are relatively objective.

 The objectivity mentioned here refers to the objectivity expressed in law.

Wu Chunmei continued to state: "The prosecutor accused Fang Rufeng and the other party Rufeng to initiate a public prosecution."

“Mainly taking into account the actual situation, and the prosecutor believes that the appellant’s statement is not comprehensive.”

  “So add it here.”

"Replenish-"

“In this case, based on the situation just stated by the appellant.

 The statement of innocence is achieved by the failure to objectively commit preparatory acts for the crime. "

“But actually, as a prosecutor, I followed law enforcement as they were doing evidence and all aspects of this case.”

“After Fang Rufeng learned that his wife Xie Tingting had cheated on her, he found many search keywords on his mobile phone.”

“For example: What should I do if my wife cheats?”

“If I kill my cheating wife, or my mistress and my wife, will I be sentenced to death?”

“This kind of keyword proves that Fang Rufeng wanted to kill his wife Xie Tingting deliberately.”

“And through the above two searches, it can be confirmed from the side that Fang Rufeng is objectively carrying out criminal preparations.”

“Combined with what Fang Rufeng said before Xie Tingting left, I will kill you.”

“Based on the above, it can be considered that Fang Rufeng’s behavior met the conditions for criminal preparation.”

“It does not conform to the description of the lawyer appointed by the appellant, and there are no objective facts to prove that Fang Rufeng is committing criminal preparations.”

“So the prosecutor’s opinion on this case is to reject the appellant’s application for acquittal.”

“The original judgment of the first instance is upheld.”

Su Bai understands the situation stated by the prosecutor.

How can we say that the intentional subjectivity is determined by searching this keyword...

 Very vague... This determination is usually determined by law to indicate that Fang Rufeng has the subjective intention to commit a crime.

However, if this is classified as objectively committing a crime preparatory act.

 Very far-fetched!

Why do you say that?

Then we need to understand first, what does criminal preparatory behavior usually refer to?

  usually refers to the power of action.

 In this case, mobility refers to preparing knives or other killing tools.

 Of course, search can also be used as certain evidence as a judgment condition.

But searching what to do if your wife cheats on you, or whether you will be sentenced to death if you kill someone, is not an action.

If Fang Rufeng is searching, how should I kill my wife without leaving any trace?

 What kind of knife should be used to attack to achieve the purpose of killing quickly?

 Such a search situation can completely determine that criminal preparatory behavior has been objectively carried out.

Why?

 Because this kind of search is a search for **** someone.

 But what is Fang Rufeng’s search?

Fang Rufeng’s search was whether he would be sentenced to death after killing someone, and what to do if his wife cheated on him.

From this point, it can be seen that he only has this intrusion subjectively.

 There is no objective preparation for committing a crime.

  If this kind of search can be judged as objective facts. Su Bai can only say that this may be the first of many cases he has come into contact with.

 One more thing - from a rational point of view, the first thing Fang Rufeng searched for was what to do if his wife cheated on her.

 If you really kill someone, will you be sentenced to death?

 Based on these two points and the environment at that time.

Fang Rufeng is in a situation where he is angry about his wife's cheating, but also rational.

Therefore, Su Bai did not agree with the prosecutor’s statement and raised his hand to refute:

“We do not agree with what the prosecution stated.”

“The content searched in the search bar does not have the facts to objectively commit criminal preparations.”

 “What is preparation for committing a crime?”

“There are clear provisions in the criminal law that preparing tools and creating conditions are preparations for crime.”

“First of all, Fang Rufeng did not prepare tools and manufacturing conditions. Secondly, the content of Fang Rufeng’s search is not related to preparing tools and manufacturing conditions.”

“Based on these two points, how could the content he searched objectively prepare for the commission of a crime?”

 “Totally unreasonable and inconsistent with the interpretation provisions of the law.”

“Presiding Judge, we apply to reject the prosecution’s relevant statements.

“And the application stated by the prosecutor, based on the search content, that Rufeng objectively carried out preparations for criminal acts, shall be rejected!”

  “The above is our rebuttal.”

 Among the four necessary conditions for criminal preparation.

 The most important thing is whether the preparatory act of committing a crime has been objectively carried out.

Whether it was Su Bai or the prosecutor, they focused on this content in their defense.

Because from these four conditions, if it is determined that Fang Rufeng objectively committed criminal preparatory acts, then this case will be lost again.

 After Su Bai finished his statement, Xu Xia, the attorney appointed by the injured party, raised his hand.

“Presiding judge, we completely disagree with the views of the appellant’s attorney...”

 Presiding Judge: “Please state the relevant content.”

“Presiding Judge, we believe that this case must be viewed from a specific and objective perspective.”

 “Start from an objective situation.”

“Did Fang Rufeng express his intention to kill Xie Tingting?”

“Are you searching for the idea of ​​what to do if you kill Xie Tingting?”

“These two points can completely prove that Fang Rufeng does have the thoughts and actions to kill people.”

"also."

“Fang Rufeng can clearly see from the search that he is already within the scope of the operation.”

"It's just that Xie Tingting called the police in time to file a case, which caused Fang Rufeng to be unprepared."

 “A little more.”

“Cheating is a very humiliating thing for Fang Rufeng.”

“In this case, it is common for Fang Rufeng to have the subjective intention to kill.”

 “And Fang Rufeng’s performance was a very angry situation.”

“...It was just that the police were called and the preparations for the crime were forcibly terminated. This is the true situation of this case.”

“So we do not agree with the statement of the lawyer entrusted by the above party.”

“At the same time, the verdict of Fang Rufeng guilty is also to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the woman and avoid Fang Rufeng’s intentional homicide.”

Su Bai:? ? ?

 Is there something wrong with your statement?

 The discussion of this case is about punishment from the perspective of preparing for the crime.

But from the perspective of the victim’s lawyer, Xu Xia, it is entirely from the perspective of Xie Tingting.

In response to this, Su Bai said: "According to the lawyer entrusted by the injured party, I would like to ask a question."

"Is your explanation that Fang Rufeng had the idea of ​​​​killing someone but was stopped when he was preparing for it? But is it also considered a crime preparation?"

 Xu Xia was silent and did not respond.

Seeing this, Su Bai continued to speak:

 “Then let me ask one more question.”

 “If we understand this case according to Qi’s statement.”

“Fang Rufeng was searching and asked whether killing the mistress and the cheating woman would result in the death penalty.”

"According to the content of the search, the other parties are two people. In this case, is it equivalent to saying that Fang Rufeng made criminal preparations to kill two people?"

“So what exactly did he do in preparation to kill these two people?”

“Will the search be punishable by death?”

“Just searching won’t hurt Xie Tingting and her cheating man, right?”

 “Then why, or how to make a judgment?”

“Just like you, Lawyer Xu, I told Lawyer Xu at the court hearing today that you will definitely be involved in crimes committed due to your duties in the future.”

 “I privately search for ways to frame others for official crimes.”

“In this case, is Lawyer Xu going to call the police to arrest me for framing others, causing others to be falsely accused?”

 “But what did I do in the process?”

“I didn’t do anything, I just made a simple statement and searched online for how to frame others for official crimes.”

“Can I be considered guilty of a crime when I have done nothing?”

“I would like to ask Lawyer Xu to answer my question head-on.”

Facing Su Bai’s question, Xu Xia remained silent.

There is really no way to answer the other party's question, and if you answer it, you will fall into a deeper routine.

 Xu Xia knew that the judgment of this case rested with the presiding judge, not with the opposing lawyer.

 Just stay silent.

At the trial table, Lin Fengru frowned slightly after listening to the arguments from both sides.

 She had a clear understanding of this case after repeatedly watching the first-instance judgment.

 It’s just...

Su Bai raised this point of view, which is equivalent to saying that he does not agree that search is an act of objective preparation for a crime.

Regarding this point, Lin Fengru asked:

“The search content submitted by the lawyer entrusted by the above party is not equivalent to the objective preparation of a crime.”

“Then why did Fang Rufeng search for these contents?”

“Can the lawyer appointed by the above party or the appellant give a reasonable explanation?”

  ? ? ?

Su Bai was stunned for a few seconds at the presiding judge's question.

No, what question is this question asking?

This is not equivalent to the classic question -

 If you don’t want to kill someone or make preparations, why are you searching like that?

.

 ….

 PS: Please give me a monthly ticket~

 (End of this chapter)