The court of first instance found that Liu Suo and Liu, policemen of a police station, handled the police situation in a food store. When the police showed their certificates and verbally summoned the defendant Zhou Mouying who beat others, the defendant Zhou Mouying refused to cooperate with the police. Later, in the process of the police forcibly summoning the defendant Zhou Mouying according to law, the defendant Zhou Mouying bit the left hand of the policeman Liu Suo. After identification, the degree of skin damage of the policeman Liu Suo's left hand constitutes a minor injury. The court of first instance sentenced him to one year's imprisonment for "nuisance of official duties". Zhou Mouying refused to accept the appeal.
After Zhou Mouying was detained in criminal detention, he entrusted Li Changyong and Lu Qiuping, lawyers of Tianjin Xingtong Law Firm, as the second-instance defenders of Zhou Mouying. Defender met with Zhou Mouying, studied the evidence of this case in detail, and analyzed relevant precedents, and thought that Zhou Mouying did not constitute a crime in this case. The defender believes that:
1. According to the Interim Measures for the Administration of Comprehensive Law Enforcement Auxiliary Personnel of County People's Government, Zhang San, Li Si and Friday involved in the case are auxiliary law enforcement personnel, all of whom are not qualified for independent administrative law enforcement, and three of them are illegal law enforcement personnel.
Second, the existing evidence can't prove that Zhou Mouying's administrative violation is prior, and "noise disturbing the people" is not established in facts and evidence, nor can it be used as the basis for administrative law enforcement.
Third, Li Si and others turned off the stereo on Friday, so they were not qualified for law enforcement and had no factual basis. This is not only a legal law enforcement act, but also a suspected violation of civil rights.
Fourth, the evidence can't prove that Zhou Mouying slapped Friday; At the same time, there is a reason for this situation. Zhou Mouying does not constitute "nothing to make trouble" or "an excuse to make trouble", and the reason for the police to deal with the police ("beating others at will") is not established.
Fifth, Zhou Mouying's behavior does not belong to "illegal" in the sense of administrative law, and does not belong to "illegal suspects"; Even if the police go to the police, they should conduct on-the-spot mediation on this obviously minor civil dispute, instead of summoning Zhou Mouying just because one party to the dispute has the status of "comprehensive law enforcement officer". Both oral summons and compulsory summons lack substantive basis and legitimacy.
Sixth, Liu Suo and other police officers summoned the police without carrying and presenting their work certificates, which was obviously illegal; Even if the work permit was later brought by a colleague, the procedures were flawed.
7. There is no evidence to prove that Liu Suo and the police station have gone through the legal procedure of compulsory summons, which further proves that the compulsory summons procedure is illegal; The "compulsory summons" in this case not only has no basis in essence, but also obviously goes beyond the necessary limit, which has the nature of infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of citizens and does not have procedural legitimacy.
Eight, the existing evidence can not prove that Liu Suo's injury was caused by Zhou Mouying; To take a step back, Zhou Mouying's resistance and escape behavior based on self-protection instinct can not be objectively evaluated as "obstruction of official duties", and Zhou Mouying has no criminal intention of "obstruction of official duties" subjectively.
The court of second instance held that:
First, whether the relevant comprehensive law enforcement activities have flaws in the cause of the case. After investigation, the cause of this case was a conflict between the staff of a comprehensive law enforcement brigade and Zhou Mouying's horn noise in the store. In the pre-trial confession and the trial of the first instance, Zhou Mouying admitted the fact of conflict with the comprehensive law enforcement personnel. At the same time, the three staff involved in the case are all comprehensive law enforcement assistants and do not have the identity and authority to formally establish a comprehensive law enforcement officer. There is no evidence to prove that the comprehensive law enforcement agency explicitly authorized the three people to carry out this law enforcement activity, or that a formally established comprehensive law enforcement officer led or assigned three auxiliary staff to carry out law enforcement activities at the scene. After the incident, the comprehensive law enforcement agencies did not provide on-site law enforcement videos to the public security organs, and no other shop staff provided testimony to confirm the situation at that time. Regarding whether the law enforcement activities are carried out by the masses or the comprehensive law enforcement officers patrol actively, it is found that there are contradictions in the testimony of witnesses Zhang San, Li Si and Friday. Therefore, in view of the serious flaws in the subject, content and procedure of this law enforcement activity, although it does not affect the subsequent determination of the crime of obstructing official duties, it does have its reasons and should be considered as a discretionary sentencing circumstance. Adopt the defender's defense opinion that the on-site comprehensive law enforcement personnel are auxiliary law enforcement personnel and have no basis for administrative law enforcement.
Second, although Zhou Mouying's behavior constitutes a crime, it belongs to a situation where the circumstances of the crime are minor and there is no need to be sentenced to punishment, and he is sentenced to be exempted from criminal punishment. Zhou Mouying was released. In the end, the people's court adopted most of the defenders' defense opinions. Although Zhou Mouying's behavior constituted a crime, it was a case in which the circumstances of the crime were minor and no penalty was required, and he was sentenced to be exempted from criminal punishment. Zhou Mouying was released.