The judgment of the First People's Court of Dongguan City held that the facts of the accusation against Huo Haifeng by the procuratorate were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, which did not meet the standards of criminal prosecution and ruled that Huo Haifeng was not guilty. Huo Haifeng said that he was satisfied with the result of acquittal, and he was very grateful to Dongguan No.1 Court for upholding justice and being innocent. He also said that he would accept the judge's suggestion with an open mind and would not be so impulsive in the future.
Case review
Caught four months after smashing the store? Compensation of 480 thousand was forgiven.
After graduating from Huo Haifeng University, he worked in a government department in Dongguan, then went to the sea to do business, and his career was quite successful. On September 20 14, he broke up with his girlfriend Wang, who had been in love for nearly 10, and married Wu Nan, a native of Hulunbeier, Inner Mongolia. After marriage, the two people have frequent contradictions because of their lack of emotional foundation. 2065438+February 2005, the two divorced.
Huo Haifeng and his ex-girlfriend Wang got back together. Huo Haifeng said that Wu Nan was very angry after learning about it. She thought that Wang had done a third party and ruined her marriage, so she harassed Wang by phone, found someone to follow her, and even lived opposite Wang's house to harass.
Huo Haifeng recalled that at that time, in addition to harassing his girlfriend and family, Wu Nan also claimed that the Huo family's daughter-in-law borrowed money everywhere and the creditors came to the door.
On the afternoon of 20 1 5438+065438+10/KLOC-0, Huo Haifeng came to Chunhuitang, a bird's nest and cordyceps drugstore operated by Wu Nan near Cheng Nan Convention and Exhibition Hotel, to seek Wu Nan's theory. Finding that Wu Nan was not in the store, Huo Haifeng, who was furious, knocked over several ornaments in the lobby of the store, rushed into the office, picked up a stone on the table and threw it at the freezer door next to him, pushing the monitor, keyboard and other odds and ends to the ground and leaving. In-store surveillance filmed the whole process for about 10 second.
Afterwards, Wu Nan didn't call again to harass or claim compensation, and Huo Haifeng also felt fine. On March 6, 20 16, Huo Haifeng was suddenly detained by the Cheng Nan police. At this time, it has been four months since the act of smashing the store. Cheng Nan police said in the "Description of the Case" that the price for the goods destroyed by the store was only received in February of 20 15, and then the defendant was contacted several times, but until March 6, 20 16, the defendant still did not cooperate.
After Huo Haifeng was detained, his family found Wu Nan and asked for his understanding. Finally, after many consultations between the two sides, Wu Nan issued a letter of understanding after the Huo family compensated 480,000 yuan.
His family told the Southern Reporter that the compensation amount of 480,000 yuan did not represent the actual loss, and the other party wanted this price to be willing to issue a letter of understanding, so the Huo family had to agree.
The prosecution accused
Smash 4 boxes of nearly 50,000 yuan of bird's nest? Suspected of vandalism
The case was sent back to the public security organs for supplementary investigation twice, and after the examination period was extended, on 201kloc-0/654381October 7, the First People's Procuratorate of Dongguan formally prosecuted Huo Haifeng for the crime of intentionally destroying property.
According to the indictment, it was found through legal trial that at around 05: 30 on 20 1654381October165438, the defendant Huo Haifeng drove to Chunhuitang Cordyceps Pharmacy, Shop No.24, Jia Lian Building, Cheng Nan, and put two pieces of glass (repair price 930 yuan) and Indonesian 6A? A box of 500g bird's nest, L4A Indonesia? A box of 500g bird's nest, a box of Indonesian 3S500 bird's nest, a box of Indonesian 4S500 bird's nest (four boxes of * * * are worth about 48,980 yuan), a computer monitor (worth about 680 yuan), 1 keyboard (worth about 50 yuan), 1 Lady Luck (worth about 680 yuan), 65438+. Evidence to confirm the above facts includes on-site inspection materials, reference price confirmation table of the property involved, witness testimony, bird's nest and other physical evidence, surveillance video and defendant's confession.
The public prosecution agency found him guilty of intentionally destroying property and suggested that he be sentenced to six months to one year and six months.
In three trials, Huo Haifeng admitted his act of hitting people, but firmly denied that the Bird's Nest was damaged.
Lawyer Yi, the defender, believes that the prosecution accused Huo Haifeng of deliberately destroying property and there is no evidence to support it. There is no fact that four boxes of bird's nest were destroyed in this case; The price confirmation form issued by Dongguan Price Certification Center failed to identify the real bird's nest and could not be used as the basis for the loss of damaged property. The 12 photo taken by the public security organ was not taken on the day of the crime, which is illegal evidence and should be excluded.
Another defender, lawyer Jiang Yongqiao, suggested that Huo Haifeng did not smash the bird's nest, had no tools for committing crimes, and the bird's nest was not damaged; The certification report of the price certification center does not identify the real thing and should not be accepted; There are inconsistencies in the transcripts of on-site investigation, on-site photos, victim's statements, physical evidence, power of attorney, case acceptance form, case filing decision and other evidence.
During the three trials, the two defenders submitted a number of evidences to prove that there was no damage to the Bird's Nest in this case, and even there was suspicion of making evidence. So Huo Haifeng should be acquitted.
court decision
Inconsistent testimony and insufficient evidence
innocent
Bird's nest is the key evidence in this case, because it constitutes the crime of intentionally destroying property, and the value of destroying property needs to reach more than 5,000 yuan. However, the smashed monitor and freezer door in this case failed to meet the standards of criminal cases. Only four cases of Indonesian bird's nest, worth about 48,980 yuan, which appeared in the supplementary investigation by the police, can meet the standard of criminal filing. But the prosecution was unable to provide a real bird's nest from beginning to end.
In the three trials of this case, whether there is damaged bird's nest has always been the focus of controversy. In the third trial on April 14, Chen Hailing, a policeman and witness who was handling the case at that time, appeared in court and was questioned by the court. In court, the police and witness Chen Hailing appeared in court successively, but the two sides once again disagreed on the whereabouts of the Bird's Nest.
The police who took photos at the scene said that it was too long to remember clearly, but they recognized the photos provided by the prosecution and thought that the photos submitted by the prosecution were the scene. At that time, the real price of bird's nest was not provided, but the price department was asked to refer to the price set by similar bird's nest.
When Chen Hailing testified in court, he provided a new statement, saying that there were 6 boxes of damaged bird's nest, two boxes were eaten and four boxes were thrown away. This statement is different from the previous testimony. Chen Hailing also said that at that time, a policeman told her to leave the damaged bird's nest for disposal. When the price department came to set the price, the Bird's Nest was still there. After fixing the price, the police told them that they could get rid of the bird's nest.
The court held that Huo Haifeng took two refrigerator glasses from Chunhuitang (the repair price was 930 yuan), a computer monitor 1 set (worth about 1 100 yuan), a double swallow keyboard 1 set (worth about 50 yuan) and a lucky goddess 1 set (worth about).
However, regarding the witness's testimony and the existence of the damaged bird's nest, the court held that the three testimonies of witness Chen Hailing in this case were inconsistent on the issue of the damaged bird's nest. The photos of the police on-site investigation can only reflect the scattered situation of the bird's nest on the spot, but can't reflect the fact that the bird's nest has been damaged. The damaged bird's nest claimed by the victim has not been physically identified. Therefore, whether there is bird's nest damage in this case, the quality and price of related bird's nest are not clear.
Because the loss of other articles in this case did not meet the standards of criminal prosecution, the public prosecution agency accused the defendant Huo Haifeng of the crime of intentionally destroying property, with unclear main criminal facts and insufficient evidence. The court finally ruled that the defendant Huo Haifeng was not guilty.