Criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court-Liu Yunlong case.
Complainant: Liu Guosen, (the defendant in the first instance, the father of the appellant in the second instance), male, 59 years old, Han nationality, from Lechang City, Guangdong Province, laid-off worker, and his address is 18, Shaanxi Road, Lechang City, Guangdong Province.
Cause of action: Guangdong Higher People's Court's (2008) Guangdong Gaofa ChuziNo. 102 judgment. Gao Yue Fa Jian Zi No.315 and (2009) Gao Yue Fa Shen Li Zi No.52 rejected the notice of appeal, which unfairly sentenced the appellant Liu Yunlong, and the facts identified were unclear.
Case course: The plaintiff's son was sentenced to life imprisonment by Shaoguan Intermediate People's Court for participating in the intentional injury (death) case with Zhou. The complainant refused to accept the appeal. On August 8, 2008, Guangdong Higher People's Court made a criminal ruling (2008) No.315, which rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The complainant refused to accept the appeal, and the Guangdong Higher People's Court issued a notice of dismissal on June 23, 2009 ([2009] Guangdong Gaofa Shenlizi No.52), dismissing the complainant's appeal.
Appeal request:
Request the Supreme People's Court to retry the case according to the trial supervision procedure.
Facts and reasons:
1. The person who caused this case is He Zhou.
On the evening of June 30, 2007, the complainant's son had a conflict with Huang while playing with Zhou and others in the Yindu Bar/Room KLOC-0/08 in Lechang City. He also hit a person on Huang's side with his car, which led to Huang's revenge, but he was not at the scene and did not participate in the fight. These facts are proved by Huang's confession in the investigation organ. In fact, there is no resentment with the victim Pan, no conflict of interest, and no motive to kill the victim. Therefore, there is no factual basis for determining Liu Yunlong as the principal offender in the first and second trials of this case.
Second, it's not Liu Yunlong who proposed to find someone to teach Cui Zicheng a lesson.
The first and second trials found that Liu Yunlong proposed to find someone to teach Cui Zicheng a lesson, and Liu Yunlong was the main planner and organizer. This decision is wrong. After a fight with Huang, Cui Zicheng and Huang sought revenge everywhere. Out of friendship, Liu Yunlong called Cui Zicheng, but Cui Zicheng asked Liu Yunlong to hand over Chih-Hao Wen, and Liu Yunlong refused. Cui Zicheng said that Liu Yunlong would be responsible. For fear of retaliation, Zhou, Zhou and Zhou left Lechang to take refuge in Shaoguan and Shenzhen. During this period, three people discussed finding someone to teach Cui Zicheng a lesson, not Liu Yunlong. As a result, Liu Yunlong came forward to ask his cousin to find some people to help Lechang catch Cui Zicheng, and Chih-Hao Wen paid for it. Buying a car and preparing the tools for committing crimes were also completed by three people, and the money for buying a car was also paid (confirmed by a weekly confession). This shows that Chih-Hao Wen played a major role in this case, and all the criminal expenses were paid by him. Therefore, this is inconsistent with the fact that Liu Yunlong is the main planner and organizer of the first and second trials.
Third, He Zhou caught the victim in this case and didn't know it beforehand.
After finding the defendant Song Ruiqiang and others in this case, Liu Yunlong, Chih-Hao Wen and others returned to Lechang and went to Cui Zicheng's work place twice in a row. On the day of the crime, after dinner, they went to see Cui Zicheng again. When they didn't find it, Liu Yunlong and others went back to the rental house to rest. At about 20 o'clock that night, Zhou drove a Guangqi Honda with the license plate number E A29 16 and continued to look for Cui Zicheng outside. During the search, and Zhou found that someone rented a motorcycle to follow, so they turned around and drove to chase the stalker. They chased their pursuers Pan and Huang by the roadside and entered Langtian Town (the annex building of Lechang Museum). When Huang saw this, he ran away. After Zhou and Zhou caught the victim, they called someone and said they had caught someone. When he arrived with others, and Zhou had caught the victim and beat him. This can be confirmed by the confessions of Li Rui and Zhou. Liu Yunlong didn't know who the victim was, except that Chih-Hao Wen said the man was following him and was Cui Zicheng's messenger. It can be proved that Hezhou is the main planner, organizer and executor of this case, because this case is to teach Cui Zicheng a lesson, and Hezhou caught the victim and what happened later without knowing it. In addition, according to Huang's confession, Huang called the victim after knowing that the victim was caught by others. Chih-Hao Wen answered the phone and said, "Believe it or not, I'll abolish him now, and it's your turn next." This can prove that Chih-Hao Wen is the organizer of this crime. In addition, the victims of the first two beatings were all Chih-Hao Wen, who first struck and electrocuted the victims with electric batons (this was confirmed by Li Rui's confession).
4. Liu Yunlong did not commit the crime of intentional injury.
After the victim was caught by Chih-Hao Wen, Chih-Hao Wen first hit the victim with the car safety lock (Chih-Hao Wen's confession has been confirmed). After Liu Yunlong and others went, other defendants beat the victim many times, and Chih-Hao Wen electrocuted the victim with electric batons, but Liu Yunlong never did so. He also advised other defendants not to hit the victim on the head to avoid killing people. These facts can be confirmed in the arrest application, prosecution opinion and defendant's confession of public security organs. Judging from the situation of beating victims, Chih-Hao Wen's subjective malignancy is far greater than that of Liu Yunlong. Because Chih-Hao Wen played a major role in the beating process, he had an unshirkable responsibility for the death of the victim. In particular, Chih-Hao Wen hit the victim's head with a car safety lock, which became an important factor in the victim's death.
There is no causal relationship between the victim's death and Liu Yunlong's behavior.
The verdict found that Liu Yunlong was the principal offender who organized and planned this case, and there was no factual basis or legal basis. Liu Yunlong's role is smaller than that of any defendant in this case. When discussing revenge against Cui Zicheng, he offered to ask for help. Because Chih-Hao Wen suggested that he should pay for it, Liu Yunlong came forward to find someone to take orders from Chih-Hao Wen. The object of revenge is Cui Zicheng, not the victim. After Liu Yunlong returned to his residence, the operation was over. The victim was caught by Zhou. From the first act to the second act, Liu Yunlong didn't start work from beginning to end. Liu Yunlong and the victim were strangers, never met, and there was no hostility. The victim's death had no motive at all. So the victim's death had nothing to do with Liu Yunlong's behavior.
Six, the main responsibility of the victim's death is not clear.
After talking to Zhou on the phone and saying that they had caught a man named, they saw the victim's head bleeding. According to the analysis of the autopsy report of the victim, the victim's head loss was fatal, and Pan died of craniocerebral injury. When Liu Yunlong was questioned in the detention center, he proposed to check whether the victim's head wound was consistent with the wound hit by Chih-Hao Wen with a safety lock, but the public security organ did not adopt Liu Yunlong's opinion. (There are relevant records in the first instance). The establishment of the same crime has three elements: first, each actor must have a criminal act belonging to the same crime. If you don't commit a criminal act, or if you commit a criminal act but belong to different charges, you can't be identified as an accomplice. Second, the behavior of the actors is not isolated, but under the intentional control of the same crime, they cooperate, coordinate and complement each other to form a whole behavior. This is the key to the establishment of * * * crime. Third, in the case of a certain harmful result, the cause of the result is the behavior of each actor as a whole. Therefore, the behavior of each actor is part of the cause of the result, but their respective roles may be different. In this case, the death of the victim is mainly caused by the personal behavior of Zhou and others, who should bear the main responsibility, but at best they are only accomplices. Chih-Hao Wen hit the victim with a car safety lock, which should not be counted as * * * * in the same criminal act. This kind of behavior is entirely his personal crime.
Seven, Chih-Hao Wen is the organizer and planner of this case.
When, Zhou, Li Rui absconded after committing a crime, they repeatedly discussed putting the blame on themselves. If Liu Yunlong is really the main culprit in organizing and planning this case, why did the three men discuss it many times and put the blame on Liu Yunlong? And Zhou was arrested, he retracted his confession many times in the detention center, colluded many times, refused to plead guilty, and his attitude was very bad. These are confirmed by the confessions of witnesses and defendants. This case was organized and planned by Chih-Hao Wen from beginning to end. He not only paid for the crime, but also instructed other defendants to beat the victim. This is enough to conclude that he Zhou is the organizer and planner of this case.
To sum up, the organization and leader of this case was Chih-Hao Wen from beginning to end, and the controversy in this case was also caused by him. It was also he who took the lead in discussing and deciding to find someone to teach Cui Zicheng a lesson. Chih-Hao Wen paid the fee and Liu Yunlong asked for help. After he was arrested, he confessed his criminal behavior truthfully, while Zhou's confession was consistent with the criminal facts 10 months ago, and he retracted his confession 10 months later, denying his participation in the crime (as pointed out by the prosecutor at the first instance) and not pleading guilty at the trial. The facts ascertained in the judgments of first and second instance are obviously improper. The main organizer and planner of this case is Chih-Hao Wen, and Liu Yunlong is only an accessory to this case, but Liu Yunlong was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Chih-Hao Wen was only sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Although Chih-Hao Wen's family has already paid compensation to the family of the deceased, even so, the sentencing gap between them is so great that it can be seen that the judgment in this case is very unfair and unjust!
Bacon, a great British philosopher, and Ceng Yun, a thinker who used to be a judge of the Royal Court of England, said: An unjust judgment even led to more than ten crimes. Because crime violates the law-but it just pollutes the water; The unjust judge broke the law, just like polluting the water. The complainant believes that Liu Yunlong should be punished by law for committing a crime, but the sentencing should be fair and just, so that the defendant can plead guilty and the guilty person can be punished. Only in this way can we truly safeguard the dignity of the law and protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens.
In view of this, according to the provisions of Article 203 of China's Criminal Procedure Law, I hereby appeal to your hospital, imploring your hospital to re-examine the case and give Liu Yunlong a fair and lenient judgment as an accessory to this case.
I am here to convey
The Supreme People's Court, People's Republic of China (PRC)