Dear presiding judge and judge,
Today, the XX District People's Court of Hefei publicly heard the case of the defendant Liu Moumou and other illegal detention crimes. According to the entrustment of the defendant Liu Moumou and the assignment of Anhui Huidu Law Firm, I am the defender of the defendant Liu Moumou in this case. Before the trial, I met with the defendant, got a detailed understanding of the case and carefully read the evidence materials of the alleged criminal facts. According to the facts of this case and relevant laws and regulations, we hereby express the following defense opinions:
First of all, the defender of this case has no objection to the accusation of illegal detention.
Secondly, the defender thinks that it is inappropriate to regard the defendant Liu Lie as the first defendant in the indictment. Although this case was caused by the debt of the defendant Liu Moumou, from the perspective of the case history, Liu Moumou did not play a primary role in the same criminal fact, and his responsibility should not be greater than that of the accomplice Li. The reason for this is the following：
1. Judging from the emergence of criminal consciousness, this is not Liu's suggestion. According to the investigation file, Li confessed: "Then I discussed with Liu Moumou and forcibly took Tang XX (the victim) from Hefei to Huizhou and controlled it." Liu confessed, "Looking for my friend Li, I plan to open an Internet cafe in partnership with him. I have no money on hand, but I have an account outside. I told him that Tang XX owed me100000, and I discussed with Li how to get the money back. At first, we wanted to find a debt collection company in the society to collect debts, but we had to give others 50,000 yuan in this way to get back 65,438+10,000. I don't agree. Later, Li said that as long as Tang XX was brought from Hefei to Guangdong, Tang XX would pay back the money. " Of course, we can doubt the credibility of Liu's unilateral confession and the validity of the evidence, but from the existing evidence, it can't prove that Liu put forward the criminal intention and instigated and abetted Li to commit the criminal act, let alone prove that Liu had planned and committed the crime long ago, and then came to Huizhou all the way to find someone to help him commit the criminal act.
2. Judging from the source of crime tools, process control and criminals, it was not provided by Liu. Hypnotic needles and potions, Li himself confessed, "I went to buy four syringes and a box of promethazine hydrochloride injection with ten needles." Cudgel, Li confessed, "Later I rented a house in Shuikou Town, Huicheng District, Huizhou City, Guangdong Province, and found a round cudgel face." The vehicle, a gray Geely Yue sedan, is his. The detention place is located in a rental house on Longhu Road, Huicheng District, Huizhou City, Guangdong Province, and Li Pingping lives in Huizhou. These crime tools were also kept and controlled by Li, which made the defendant Liu confess. Later, when the car drove to Huizhou, he didn't know the whereabouts of these tools. Another criminal in this case, Niu XX, was also called by Li, and the defendant didn't know him at all before filing the case.
Judging from the criminal process, the defendant Liu didn't play the most important role. We can look at several key control points in this case. First of all, in order to facilitate the victim Tang XX to get on the bus, Li hit the victim with a wooden stick. Secondly, in the car, in order to stop the victim from shouting, Li threatened to give him anesthetic. Thirdly, in order to prevent the victim from escaping, Li confiscated the victim's mobile phone and the money he carried with him, depriving the victim of the tools to contact with the outside world or escape. Finally, in order to urge the victim's family to remit money as soon as possible, Li threatened the victim's family by telephone, saying that he would take the victim to the northeast without remittance and sell his cornea and kidneys so that she could not even find the body.
In short, the defender does not mean that Li's responsibility is big or small, and his criminal responsibility is not the defense scope of the defender. The defender only stressed that the responsibility of the defendant Liu should not be greater than that of Li.
Third, the defender believes that there are still the following situations in this case:
1. In this case, there was a dispute due to normal economic exchanges, and the defendant did not ask for illegal debts such as gambling debts. In the process of detention, the defendant only asked for the principal, and did not take advantage of the victim's disadvantage to ask for illegal benefits.
2. The case did not cause substantial harm to the victim, and the social harm was light. No violence was used against the victim except that he was forced into the car and hit him two or three times. The so-called threats of injecting anesthesia and selling corneas and kidneys are also aimed at making the victims not resist or urging their families to remit money as soon as possible, which is not the real intention of the three defendants. In the process of detention, the victim was not allowed to leave the room, and no coercive measures such as binding were imposed on the victim, nor were they insulted or threatened, nor were they abused in terms of diet. Even, the defendant and the victim played chess while drinking tea, which did no harm to the victim at all.
3. Defendant Liu is a first-time offender and an occasional offender, and his subjective malignancy is not serious. Liu and the victim have been business partners for many years. They are usually brothers and have a good relationship. This crime, due to ten years of debt, the victim has been in arrears, the defendant has financial difficulties, coupled with weak legal awareness, influenced and instigated by some adverse effects, and was confused for a while. Moreover, in the process of detention, his purpose was only to ask for money, and the use of violence and threats was not his original intention and was not implemented.
4. After the defendant Liu was brought to justice and during the trial, he pleaded guilty with a good attitude and did not resist or distort it. He deeply regrets the harm that he and other * * * have done to the victim, asks for forgiveness and makes profound introspection.
In terms of sentencing, according to the Guiding Opinions of the People's Court on Sentencing (Trial) and the Guiding Opinions of the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province, if there is no harm, the starting point of sentencing can be determined within the range of more than three months of criminal detention to less than six months of fixed-term imprisonment. The defendant also has mitigating circumstances such as illegally detaining or detaining others in order to claim legal debts and strive for legal rights and interests, voluntarily confessing in court, and not causing economic losses to the victim. Therefore, the defender suggested that for the defendant Liu Moumou, the sentencing range can be about 6 months. On this basis, the court should also consider that this case is different from greedy crimes such as theft and robbery, and there is almost no possibility that the defendant will commit crimes again and endanger society. In order to be more conducive to the defendant's transformation, ensure that his family of four (two younger sons are still studying! The only source of livelihood will not be interrupted and new social problems will be eliminated. Probation can be applied to the defendant.
Ask the court to adopt it!