1. The first-instance judgment, Ou Shenfu committed the crime of extortion, which is obviously an economic dispute between the two sides, as evidenced by the flowing bank. The matter has been reported to the police station and identified as an economic dispute. The first-instance judgment is still identified as extortion.
The first trial found out: "On September 4th, 20 14, the defendant Ou Shenfu borrowed10 million yuan from the victim Chen Wenbin for turnover and agreed to repay it one month later. After that, Ou Shenfu mortgaged the loan with the villa. " Actually, Du borrowed money and asked Ou Shenfu to lend Du 1 1 ten thousand yuan in the name of Ou Shenfu. Later, Chen Wenbin paid 1 ten thousand yuan to Ou Shenfu, and Ou Shenfu issued an IOU to Chen Wenbin. A few days later, Ou Shenfu transferred12.6 million yuan to Chen Wenbin. Obviously, the court of first instance found that it was wrong for Ou Shenfu to borrow100000 yuan from Chen Wenbin. Ou Shenfu has never borrowed money from Chen Wenbin, and has paid the postage to the account of Chen Wenbin Company in full.
Ou Shenfu only borrowed 6 million from Chen Wenbin and mortgaged his villa worth 9.6 million to Chen Wenbin. The two sides agreed that after the sale of the villa, Chen Wenbin would compensate Ou Shenfu 3.6 million yuan. When Ou Shenfu asked Chen Wenbin for a debt of 3.6 million yuan, the two sides had a dispute and called the police twice. After the police called the police, it was identified as an economic dispute. Chen Wenbin later found an intermediary to coordinate. He owed Ou Shenfu 3.6 million yuan, and Chen Wenbin only paid Ou Shenfu 2 million yuan. Ou Shenfu had no choice but to agree to give only 2 million yuan, and Chen Wenbin gained huge benefits. Therefore, he also paid 200,000 yuan to the intermediary to coordinate the benefits. Such a thing was actually determined by the court of first instance that Ou Shenfu had extorted 2 million yuan from Chen Wenbin. Instead, it is unreasonable to attack creditors as crimes. Subjectively, there is no purpose of illegal possession, and objectively, there is no extortion. Incredibly, the case was identified as an economic dispute after being handled twice by the police station, and was sentenced again by the court.
Second, the car Porsche borrowed by Ou Shenfu was hit, and the rental fee and depreciation fee offered by Ou Shenfu should be mandatory. The police station went to the police twice and was identified as an economic dispute case, which was later identified as extortion by the court.
Through the trial, I learned that I should drive Sichuan EB6989 Mercedes-Benz sedan to rear-end the Porsche off-road vehicle driven by Ou Shenfu. Appraised by the traffic police department, he should take full responsibility. According to the evaluation of second-hand car dealers, Porsche vehicles are seriously damaged, with depreciation and loss of 60,000 to 70,000 yuan. Ou Shenfu should ask for the depreciation fee of the vehicle. After consultation, the two sides reached a compensation agreement under the handling of the police, and Yingqiang was willing to pay a depreciation fee of 26,000 yuan. How can this kind of thing handled by both sides through consultation be considered as an economic dispute after the police come out? According to the law, even asking for illegal debts (such as gambling debts) does not constitute extortion. Ou Shenfu's request is based on facts and does not constitute it anyway.
Luo Xiang, a famous law professor, once explained the boundary between extortion and legitimate rights protection in the practice of Li Guo's case. "As far as private rights are concerned, as long as the law does not prohibit it, it is our right. Legal interests are the basis of conviction, and ethics is the basis of conviction. " It can be seen that as long as a behavior is allowed by life, it cannot be dealt with. Three, for the two cases of illegal detention identified by the court of first instance, Ou Shenfu did not direct others to collect debts. In fact, he never appeared at the debt collection site. Liu took the initiative to go to the hotel, where he could walk freely and make phone calls. How to constitute the crime of illegal detention? In addition, Song's illegal detention case and gambling crime have not been confirmed by the filing decision.
(1) The case of illegal detention in Song Dynasty, which was determined by the first-instance judgment, was not even filed, and the crime of gambling was not filed, which seriously violated legal procedures and all the evidence collected was illegal. ?
Filing a case is the premise of jurisdiction and criminal investigation. Without investigation, there will be no public prosecution, let alone trial. Therefore, there is no basis for the court to hear this case. Filing a case is the legal basis for investigation. If the case is not filed, the evidence collected by the investigation organ is illegal and should be excluded. It cannot be used as evidence to accuse a crime. If the case is not filed, the subsequent investigation, prosecution, prosecution and trial will lose their legitimacy. All the procedures are the most serious violations, and all the evidence is illegal and not binding on Ou Shenfu. In fact, there are laws that clearly stipulate that criminal proceedings can only be carried out without filing a case. If you don't file a case, you should be acquitted.
(2) Ou Shenfu never advocated borrowing money from Song in this way, nor did he entrust others to ask for debts from Song. But Song owed Liu Zuoyin 30,000 yuan, and Liu Zuoyin and others asked Song for debts. Song's statement that he lost his personal freedom in the hotel was false. Song hasn't had time to contact the outside world, eat, etc. Being in a hotel, and he can get a loan, can't constitute the crime of illegal detention.
(3) Ou Shenfu did not entrust others to claim debts from Liu, but Liu owed Che Zhaoquan 300,000 yuan, and Che Zhaoquan claimed debts from Liu. The defendants involved in this case all retracted their confessions in court, claiming that they were induced by the public security organs to testify that Ou Shenfu was identified.
The first-instance judgment found that "Ou Shenfu arranged for Che Zhaoquan to ask Liu for high-interest debts" and had relevant transcripts. However, Che Zhaoquan retracted his confession in court, clearly indicating that Liu owed Che Zhaoquan 300,000 yuan. Che Zhaoquan and Liu are in a creditor-debtor relationship. Che Zhaoquan didn't ask for an account for Ou Shenfu, but asked for an account himself. The transcripts were inconsistent, and Che Zhaoquan made a reasonable explanation. This matter has something to do with Ou Shenfu. (2) Che Zhaoquan, Che Yu and Yu did not say that they wanted to collect debts for Ou Shenfu, nor did they deprive Liu of his personal freedom. They just follow Liu, and wherever Liu goes, they follow; (3) Liu found the hotel himself. Liu has never completely lost his personal freedom. He can contact the outside world and borrow money. (4) Zuowei Liu Ou Shenfu's debtor has a great interest in Ou Shenfu and others, and his written record has weak probative force, which contradicts other evidence in this case and is not admissible. Therefore, it is a fact that the court of first instance found that Ou Shenfu and others constituted the crime of illegal detention.
(4) The "three acts of picking quarrels and causing troubles" recognized in the first-instance judgment obviously does not constitute a crime, even if the facts are true, it is also a minor illegal act.
According to the judgment of the first instance, Ou Xiaohong, Tang Xuebo and Yu Qiang all borrowed money from Ou Shenfu and owed debts to Ou Shenfu. In response to the debt collection behavior of Che Zhaoquan and others, the court of first instance found that there was a slight beating; In view of the facts of Tang Xuebo, the behavior identified by the court of first instance is intimidation and threat; In view of Ou Xiaohong's de facto debt collection behavior, the court of first instance found that she had personal follow-up behavior. Even if the facts identified by the court of first instance are true, the crime of picking quarrels and stirring up trouble needs to seek excitement, vent emotions and try to be brave and make trouble subjectively; Ou Shenfu and others' subjective purpose is to collect debts, and there is no intention to make trouble, which cannot constitute this crime. Objectively, the behavior of Ou Shenfu and others obviously does not conform to the "bad plot" stipulated in the first paragraph of the judicial interpretation and the "bad plot" stipulated in the second paragraph of the first paragraph of Article 293 of the Criminal Law, and does not conform to the legal provisions of the crime of stirring up trouble. Even if it is true, it is only a minor illegal act. (five) the evidence of the crime of opening a casino as determined in the judgment of first instance is obviously insufficient.
The first-instance judgment determined that Ou Shenfu opened three casinos in 2009, 20 10, 20 1 1 year respectively, and "released water" and "tapped" in them, and determined that the accumulated amounts were at least one million yuan, at least six million yuan and at least 10.8 million yuan respectively. By sitting in on the trial, we learned that the amount of the three counts of the crime of opening a casino identified by the court of first instance was inferred by Zhu Yuhua, Song Yijiang and Du Wenjiang according to the file evidence. In fact, they don't know, and they are not always in these places. These inferences are completely untrue. Moreover, when these three people answered the lawyer's questions in court, they all said that they were induced by the public security organs, estimated and calculated by the public security organs, and they were not themselves at all.
Moreover, regarding the question of who opened the three places, the defendant in the court said that it was not opened by Ou Shenfu, but only playing cards in it. Asked why they said this in the transcript, they also said that it was induced by the public security organs to identify Ou Shenfu. In fact, they didn't see Ou Shenfu pouring water and beating in it, and even the previous transcripts were inconsistent.