1. Cases that the collegial panel of second instance considers that the original judgment is unclear in facts and insufficient in evidence, which need to be directly verified and tried, and should not be sent back to the court of first instance for retrial;
2. A case appealed by the parties on the grounds that the facts ascertained in the original judgment are unclear and the evidence is insufficient, regardless of whether the facts ascertained by the collegial panel of second instance are clear or not, shall be heard in court, and the case and evidence shall be finally ascertained according to law through the trial, reflecting the seriousness, democracy and fairness of the trial;
3. The case that the defendant's defense lawyer or the attorney of the private prosecutor appeals on his behalf with the consent of the client shall be heard in court. Since lawyers think that the facts are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, or the law is improperly applied, they should pay full attention to the reasons for appeal held by lawyers. Through trial, lawyers can give full play to their role in criminal proceedings and further ensure the quality of the second-instance judgment.
4. Cases that are significant, complicated or have great social impact shall be heard in court. For such cases, even if the collegial panel of second instance thinks that the facts are clear, it may not hold a court session, but in order to strengthen the special education and general education function of punishment, it may also hold a court session to receive the social effect of hearing the case, which is conducive to the comprehensive management of social security.
5. Cases in which the judge of the original trial violated the law and discipline or even accepted bribes, which affected a fair judgment, shall be heard in court.
6. Other cases that should be heard in court.