Looking at this matter from a legal perspective, this once again reflects the fairness of the judiciary, because this resentencing is a necessary correction. The previous trial still ruled that despite insufficient evidence, There is a problem with the guilt of gang-related defendants.
This case can be regarded as a precedent. From a legal point of view, it is undoubtedly a manifestation of judicial fairness. This case is quite special. The basic situation is that a group of migrant workers collect debts, and then the boss reports the case. Because some of these migrant workers are related by blood, they are regarded as evil forces and participate in violent debt collection. However, this is not supported by sufficient evidence. Under such circumstances, it is problematic for the first trial to still convict these 13 defendants. This retrial is to correct the mistakes of the first trial and to give justice to the defendants who were wrongly convicted. The most important thing is that it reflects the fairness of the judiciary, which means that in the absence of conclusive evidence, sentences cannot be arbitrarily imposed , if there is no conclusive evidence, we can only be acquitted!
In fact, from a legal perspective, this case is not troublesome because it is a typical case of miscarriage of justice due to insufficient evidence. Relevant laws of our country stipulate that in the absence of insufficient evidence, judicial organs cannot impose a sentence and can only acquit. However, a problem arose in the first instance of this case, that is, a verdict was reached despite insufficient evidence. Of course, we don’t know whether there was really insufficient evidence at the time, because the judicial system in each place has certain deviations in the definition of insufficient evidence, so we cannot look at the matter so simply. Therefore, the defendant's appeal should be supported, because the outcome of the trial of the superior court is likely to be acquittal, which is also a manifestation of judicial fairness.
In general, looking at this matter from a legal perspective, this is a relatively rare but normal case. Because the definition of insufficient evidence is relatively broad, there must be certain errors. At this time The defendant can appeal again to a higher court for trial, which is a manifestation of judicial fairness.