Defendant Guo, male, 28 years old, from Jiangdu City, Jiangsu Province, a farmer, lives in Youqiao Village, Jinxi Town, Jiangdu City. 1September 997 1 1 arrested.
The defendant Guo was prosecuted by Jiangdu People's Procuratorate of Jiangsu Province to Jiangdu People's Court for allegedly producing and selling fake and inferior products.
Jiangdu City People's Court found through public hearing that in the first half of 1996, the defendant Guo rented some houses in Yiling Town Village, Jiangdu City, and started a factory without actual production capacity and without the registration and permission of the administrative department for industry and commerce, claiming to manufacture equipment for producing batteries. /kloc-in July, 2005, in the name of Jiangdu Guangming Battery Factory run by Yucun, Guo signed an R 6 battery production equipment purchase and sale contract with jurong city Dahe Battery Co., Ltd. in Jiangsu Province with a target price of 206,000 yuan through Wang Benchao, secretary of the village party branch and director of Guangming Battery Factory, and stamped the official seal of Guangming Battery Factory. Since then, the advance payment of RMB 1.26 million remitted by Dahe Battery Co., Ltd. to Guangming Battery Factory was taken away by Guo Yi and Wang Benchao. Guo spent more than 50 thousand yuan to buy waste R 6 battery production equipment from Suzhou Guangming Battery Accessories Factory, Hai 'an Battery Machinery Factory, Jiangdu Third Chemical Plant and other units, and produced some spare parts himself. After refreshing and assembling, it was sold as qualified products to Dahe Battery Co., Ltd. 14 sets. After being appraised by Jiangdu Technical Supervision Bureau, the equipment did not have its due performance and was unqualified.
The above facts are confirmed by the confession of the defendant Guo, the testimony of witnesses, the purchase and sale contract of industrial and mining products and the appraisal of Jiangdu Municipal Bureau of Technical Supervision.
The Jiangdu People's Court held that the defendant Guo spent more than 50,000 yuan to buy waste products for renovation and assembly, and after selling them to users as qualified products, he actually got1260,000 yuan. His behavior has violated the provisions of Article 140 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), which constitutes the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products. The charges charged by Jiangdu People's Procuratorate are established and should be supported. Accordingly, on February 22nd, the court ruled 1997+65438:
Defendant Guo committed the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products and was sentenced to one year and six months in prison; And fined 6.5438+0.26 million yuan.
After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the defendant Guo refused to accept it, and appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province on the grounds that "it was a unit crime" and "the Decision on Punishing the Crime of Producing and Selling Fake and Inferior Commodities (hereinafter referred to as the Decision) should be applied in accordance with the principle of punishing the elderly lightly".
Yangzhou Intermediate People's Court held through trial that the original judgment found that the appellant Guo produced and sold fake and inferior products, with a sales amount of 6.5438+0.26 million yuan and an illegal income of more than 60,000 yuan. The facts of the crime are clear, the evidence is sufficient and accurate, and it is correct to investigate his criminal responsibility according to law. Guo put forward the appeal reason of "unit crime". After investigation, Guangming Battery Factory only stamped the official seal on the purchase and sale contract signed by Guo when he asked for help. The factory was unaware of Guo's production and sales of fake and inferior products and did not participate in Guo's production and sales activities. Guo's production and sale of fake and inferior products is purely his personal behavior, so the appeal reason of "unit crime" cannot be established and will not be adopted. As for Guo's appeal reason of being punished according to the principle of lighter punishment in the old criminal law, after investigation, Guo's criminal behavior occurred before the implementation of 1997 10+0 criminal law. 1Article 1 of the decision adopted on July 2, 993 stipulates: "Producers and sellers who adulterate their products with fake products, pass off fake products as genuine products, and pass off unqualified products as qualified products, and the amount of illegal income is more than 20,000 yuan but less than 100,000 yuan, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years or criminal detention, and may also be fined. If the circumstances are minor, administrative punishment may be given. " Article 12 stipulates: "In accordance with. Article 140 of the Criminal Law stipulates: "Producers and sellers who adulterate their products with fake products, pass fake products off as genuine products, and pass unqualified products off as qualified products, and the sales amount is more than 50,000 yuan but less than 200,000 yuan, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years or criminal detention, and shall also be fined not less than 50% but not more than two times the sales amount. "Comparing the two, there seems to be no difference between the principal punishment and the principal punishment, but in terms of the amount standard and constitutive requirements for investigating criminal responsibility, the criminal law has revised" the amount of illegal income is less than 20,000 yuan100000 yuan "to" the sales amount is more than 50,000 yuan but less than 200,000 yuan ",and the" illegal income "mentioned in the Decision refers to the amount of profit. The "sales amount" mentioned in the criminal law, no matter whether the actor is making a profit or losing money, as long as the sales amount reaches the standard of more than 50 thousand yuan, should be investigated criminally. At the same time, in order to intensify the crackdown on the crime of producing and selling fake and inferior products, the criminal law has deleted the provision that "administrative punishment can be given if the circumstances are minor" in the decision. It can be seen that this decision is obviously lighter than the criminal law. Therefore, according to the provisions of Article 12 of the Criminal Law, Guo's behavior should be punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of the Decision. Guo's appeal grounds are established and should be adopted. Accordingly, Yangzhou Intermediate People's Court made the following judgment in accordance with Article 189 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC): The criminal judgment No.229 of Jiangdu People's Court (1997) was revoked; The appellant Guo was convicted of producing and selling fake and inferior products, sentenced to one year's imprisonment and fined 60,000 yuan.