Appellant (defendant in the original trial) Qiu, male, born on June/KOOC-0/977/KOOC-0/2/KOOC-0/2, with ID number of 359002/KOOC-0/9770/KOOC-0/65438. On June 5, 2006+10/October 5, 2006, he was criminally detained by the Anti-smuggling Bureau of Shenzhen Customs and arrested on February 22 of the same year. He is currently detained in Shenzhen No.3 Detention Center. Reasons for appeal:
On August 6th, 2008, the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province sentenced the appellant 15 years' imprisonment and fined RMB18890165438.
Appeal request:
Request the Guangdong Higher People's Court to correct the erroneous identification of the appellant's criminal facts, the appellant's principal offender in a joint crime, and the appellant's meritorious service in the original judgment, and instead identify the appellant as an accessory to this case, which constitutes meritorious service, and reduce the punishment for the appellant according to law. The facts and reasons on which the appeal is based:
First, the original judgment found that there were serious errors in the facts.
(1) The original judgment found that the defendants Qiu Jinlai and Qiu Jinlai each contributed 700,000 yuan, and the defendants Qiu Jinlai and Qiu Jinlai made profits from smuggling in 2003 and each contributed 700,000 yuan in 2004? (See page 2 1 of the original judgment for details.) This is wrong. The appellant was invited by Lu Chengpin, Lu Chengdian and others in 2004. Leadership? Next, do some accounting work for them. Therefore, there is no case that the appellant shared 700,000 yuan in smuggling profits in 2003 and invested 700,000 yuan in 2004.
The facts of information. The fact that the appellant did not contribute 700,000 yuan can be completely confirmed in the dividend summary table made by Lu Chengdian. The dividend summary table only records the appellant's dividend of 420,000 yuan, and there is no record of the appellant's contribution, which is the best proof. Because, the so-called contribution of 700,000 yuan is similar to the performance shares given by some unscrupulous businessmen to corrupt officials in society, and it was given to the appellant by Lu Chengpin, Lu Chengdian and others. In fact, the appellant made no contribution.
(2) The judgment of the original trial stated: the determination of the capital contribution of the defendant Lu Chengpin and others. Defendants Lu Chengpin and Qiu confessed in the investigation stage that the five brothers Lu each contributed 4 million yuan, Qiu contributed 700,000 yuan, Qiu and Qiu Jinlai each contributed 700,000 yuan in profits, which were also directly converted into contributions in 2004? (See page 59 of the original judgment for details) It is wrong to assume that the appellant made a profit of 700,000 yuan in 2003.
At the investigation stage of this case, the appellant did not make any statements and explanations mentioned in the review of the original judgment. Even if the appellant had such a statement and explanation, it was not as stated in the original judgment that the appellant invested 700,000 yuan in a false way. As mentioned above, the so-called contribution of 700,000 yuan is just a gift from Lu Chengpin, Lu Chengdian and others to the appellant? Imaginary number? , is a benchmark figure for Lu finished products, Lu Chengdian and others to pay the appellant in the future;
(3) The original judgment found that the appellant was responsible for managing the funds of Lu Chengpin and Lu Chengdian smuggling gangs (see pages 22 and 26 of the original judgment for details), which was wrong.
The appellant only works for Lu Chengpin and Lu Chengdian smuggling gangs. Lu Chengdian is the actual and real manager and dominator of smuggling gang funds and the person in charge of accounts. The general ledger of the gang was made by Lu Chengdian. His account records include? Shareholders? Name, share amount, profit sharing, quantity and variety of goods, etc. The appellant was directly led by Lu Chengdian from beginning to end, and those who assisted him in his work accepted his supervision. The accounts I recorded are only preliminary, and the final result needs Lu Chengdian's approval. The appellant calculated the profit share by bookkeeping and reconciliation, and compared it with Lin Jinzhou and Lin Zenghui.
People such as audit, payment collection, pay is in accordance with the instructions of Lu Chengdian. The appellant strongly demanded handwriting identification to eliminate the improper identification of the appellant in the original judgment; 、
It is wrong for the original judgment to deny the defendant's meritorious service.
The original judgment found:? Defendant Qiu truthfully confessed the smuggling accounts in the investigation stage, which is helpful to the detection of the case. Although it does not constitute meritorious service according to the law, it is a performance of pleading guilty and repenting, and can be given a lighter punishment. ? (See page 67 of the original judgment for details). In this regard, whether the appellant has rendered meritorious service should be based on the degree of the appellant's positive role in this case. Appellant's explanation of the relevant accounts in the investigation stage and even the trial stage of this case, especially those two? U disk? Explain that it plays a decisive role in finding out the facts of this case, and should be recognized as meritorious service according to law, and the appellant should be given a lighter punishment according to law. The original judgment was only the appellant? Confess? This is wrong and obviously unfair to the appellant.
To sum up, the appellant believes that the original judgment found that the appellant invested 700,000 yuan to participate in the smuggling activities of Lu finished products and others in 2003, and made a profit of 700,000 yuan, and then converted the 700,000 yuan into investment in 2004; The appellant is responsible for managing the funds of Lu finished products and Lu Chengdian smuggling gangs; On behalf of the appellant, Lu Chengdian, Lin Jinzhou and Cai invested in cigarette smuggling activities in Huiyang sea area, and on the basis of two USB flash drives without physical objects, it was determined that the appellant participated in the smuggling activities of Lu Chengpin and Lu Chengdian smuggling gangs and evaded taxes 1, 188,901,18. Both found the facts and the judgment improper, sentenced the appellant to 15 years' imprisonment and fined RMB 1, 18890 1, 107.70, obviously.
It belongs to excessive sentencing (including the main penalty and the supplementary penalty fine). Based on the above facts and reasons, the appellant filed a special appeal, requesting the Guangdong Higher People's Court to re-determine the facts of this case, and not to consider the appellant as an accessory to this case, with meritorious service. At the same time, he also implored the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province to fully consider the appellant as the only source of livelihood for the whole family from a humanitarian standpoint, his wife Qiu Yinglan is unemployed, and two young children (one is 6 years old and the other is 2 years old) have yet to be raised. The parents of husband and wife are over 60 years old and over 80 years old, respectively. They are in poor health and need long-term medical treatment. The appellant still needs to fulfill his duty of support, and so on. According to the actual situation, the appellant shall be given a lighter punishment as appropriate.
I am here to convey
Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court