Shanghai criminal lawyer
Shanghai criminal practicing lawyer
Legal problems in the column
[Demonstration Site]
In the process of * * * fraud, if one person robs other people's property on impulse, and other * * * fraudsters knowingly help escape, they should be considered as * * * criminals who constitute robbery.
[case]
Public Prosecution Organ: People's Procuratorate of Qingyang District, Chengdu.
Defendants: Yi, Zhou.
The People's Procuratorate of Qingyang District of Chengdu accused the defendants Yi and Zhou of committing fraud at the intersection of the First Ring Road and Dashi West Road in Qingyang District of Chengdu on September 27th, 2065438 10. Defendant Yi approached the victim Ma Moumou on the roadside and said that he wanted to sell 1 white "Apple 5" mobile phone at 500 yuan price. After the victim Ma Moumou agreed, he handed 500 yuan cash to the defendant Yi in binjiang road, Jinguanqiao, Qingyang District. The defendant gave the "Apple 5" mobile phone to the victim Ma Moumou and pretended to regret asking Ma Moumou to return the mobile phone. The victim Ma Moumou refused. The defendant easily saw that he couldn't get his mobile phone back, so he pushed the victim Ma Moumou to the ground and forcibly snatched a Samsung 9500 mobile phone and a white Apple 5 mobile phone from the victim. After the defendant easily snatched the mobile phone, he fled the scene on a motorcycle driven by the defendant Zhou who was in charge of answering the phone at the scene. The last two were stopped. The public prosecution agency believes that the defendants Yi and Zhou used violent means to rob other people's property on the spot for the purpose of illegal possession, and their actions have violated the provisions of Article 263 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), so they should be investigated for criminal responsibility for robbery.
The defendant Yi had no objection to the charges and criminal facts alleged in the indictment, and put forward his defense opinion that he had made meritorious service and hoped to be given a lighter punishment. Defendant Zhou had no objection to the criminal facts alleged in the indictment, but argued that he and Yi only murdered for money, and he did not intend to rob.
The court found through trial that the defendant easily conspired with the defendant Zhou to sell the real mobile phone at a low price and implement fraud by replacing it with a mold mobile phone, stipulating that one person would commit fraud and the other person would be responsible for the response. For the purpose of fraud, the defendant bought 1 Apple 5 mobile phone and 10 Apple 5 mold mobile phone in the mobile phone market of Taisheng South Road in this city. On September 27th, 2065438 10, the defendants Yi and Zhou waited for an opportunity to cheat at the intersection of the First Ring Road and Dashi West Road in Qingyang District of this city. Defendant Yi approached the victim Ma Moumou on the roadside and said that he wanted to sell 1 white "Apple 5" mobile phone at 500 yuan price. With the consent of the victim Ma Moumou, 500 yuan was given cash to the defendant Yi in binjiang road, Jinguanqiao, Qingyang District, this city. The defendant gave the "Apple 5" mobile phone to the victim Ma Moumou and pretended to regret asking Ma Moumou to return the mobile phone. The victim Ma Moumou refused. The defendant easily saw that he couldn't get his mobile phone back, so he pushed the victim Ma Moumou to the ground and forcibly snatched a Samsung 9500 mobile phone (worth 4,600 yuan) and a white Apple 5 mobile phone (worth 4,000 yuan) from the victim. After the defendant easily snatched the mobile phone, he fled the scene on a motorcycle driven by the defendant Zhou who was in charge of answering the phone at the scene. Defendant Yi Hou sold Samsung's mobile phone at Taisheng South Road, Qingyang District, this city for 2600 yuan, and the proceeds from the fraud, together with cash, were divided equally between 500 yuan and Defendant Zhou and "Tang Waer" (unknown, at large). On September 29th, 20 13, the police arrested the defendant Yi in Jule Road, Wuhou District, this city. On September 30th, 20 13, the defendant Yi assisted the police to stop the defendant Zhou at the intersection of the overpass on the second ring road in this city.
[trial]
The Qingyang District People's Court of Chengdu held that the defendants Yi and Zhou used violent means to rob citizens' property on the spot for the purpose of illegal possession, and their actions constituted robbery. The fact that the People's Procuratorate of Qingyang District of Chengdu accused the defendants Yi and Zhou of committing robbery was clear and the charges were established, and our court supported them. In the * * * accomplice crime, the defendant is easy to play a major role in this case, and he is the principal. The defendant plays a secondary role and is an accessory, so he should be given a lighter or mitigated punishment. After the defendant is easily blocked, assisting the public security organ to capture the co-defendant Zhou is a meritorious service and can be given a lighter punishment. After the incident, the relatives of the two defendants took the initiative to compensate the victim and obtained the understanding of the victim. Therefore, the two defendants can be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. The two defendants voluntarily pleaded guilty during the trial, and their guilty attitude was good, so they could be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. Accordingly, the verdict is as follows: the defendant is prone to robbery, sentenced to three years in prison and fined 1,000 yuan. The defendant Zhou committed robbery and was sentenced to 10 months in prison and fined 1000 yuan.
After the verdict was pronounced, the public prosecution agency did not protest and the defendant did not appeal. The judgment has taken legal effect.
[argument]
In the process of * * * fraud, the defendant easily robbed other people's property on the spot by violent means beyond the scope of their collusion. There is no objection to the crime of robbery. However, in judicial practice, there are two opinions on how to characterize Zhou's behavior:
The first opinion is that there is only an agreement on fraud between Yi and Zhou, and the act of robbing the victim's mobile phone is beyond the scope of * * * and the criminal * * *, and Zhou could not have foreseen Yi's robbery at that time and did not actually participate in the robbery, so there is no intention and behavior of * * * and robbery. Yi should be independently responsible for his over-limit behavior, and Zhou in this case cannot be convicted of robbery.
The second opinion is that although Iraq robbed the victim's mobile phone, it was not within their premeditated scope. However, judging from the occurrence of criminal acts, the defendant Zhou witnessed the process of Yi Yichun robbing other people's property, that is, knowing that the robbery occurred; At the same time, the defendant Zhou Zaiyi fled the scene by motorcycle after robbing the victim's mobile phone, and finally participated in the sharing of stolen mobile phone goods, that is, there was a crime of * * * *, so the defendant Zhou's behavior should be convicted and punished for robbery.
I agree with the second opinion. In fact, the focus of controversy behind the above two viewpoints lies in how to distinguish improvisation, crime and over-limitation, two easily confused criminal forms.
First, the origin of the problem: thinking about the return to * * * and the theory of crime.