Plaintiff: Yao Huaping, male, from Yao Xing Village, Qingshui Town, guanxian City, Liaocheng City.
Defendant: 1, Yue Qixiang, currently director of guanxian Civil Affairs Bureau.
2. Feng Shouyi is from Qingshui Town, guanxian.
3. Other members of the team headed by Feng Shouyi
Charge: 1. Request guanxian Public Security Bureau to investigate the criminal responsibility of criminal gangs headed by Yue Qixiang and Feng Shouyi for robbing the plaintiff's tractors, cash and other items.
2. The defendant was ordered to compensate the defendant for all the losses caused by robbing tractors and other things.
Fact: On the evening of Lunar New Year1the first day of May, 998 (1June 24, 998) 10: 30, a small gang led by defendants Yue Qixiang and Feng Shouyi gathered many people to illegally invade the defendant's family. They accused the family of having no adults, failing to show any documents and procedures, and failing to identify themselves, and physically coercing and violence the only minor in the defendant's family (Yao Jinting, the defendant's second son).
The defendant has violated the crime of robbery stipulated in Article 263 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) "robbing public or private property by violence, coercion or other means", which belongs to "burglary" stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 263 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). According to the provisions of this article, it should be "sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years, life imprisonment or death, and fined or confiscated property". Therefore, the case is still under prosecution, and it is hoped that the public security organs will enforce the law impartially and investigate the criminal responsibility of the defendant for burglary.
Note: The facts of this case are evidenced by the administrative judgment of guanxian People's Court of Shandong Province-1999 16 1 and the administrative judgment of Liaocheng Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province -(2000) Zhaxing Final Word No.57.
The judgment in this case is not clearly defined as administrative violation! The statement in the judgment of the first instance is: "We believe that on the first day of the fifth lunar month of 1998, the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, the defendant forcibly detained the tractor of the plaintiff Yao Huaping to Du School on the grounds that it refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng, and its administrative action had no legal basis, so this court did not support it." Later, it was stated in the judgment that "the administrative compulsory act of detaining the plaintiff Yao Huaping's tractor by the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian was revoked." The statement in the judgment of the second instance is "We believe that the fact that the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, the appellee forcibly detained Yao Huaping's tractor to Dujia on May 1998 of the lunar calendar on the grounds that the appellee Yao Huaping refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng can be recognized. This administrative act has no legal basis and is illegal. Our hospital will not support it, and the tractor seized by the Appellee shall be returned. " The final verdict is "dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment." Administrative coercion should be understood as an illegal act committed by an administrative organ or its responsible person by virtue of its administrative authority, so these two judgments are relatively fair, at least confirming the fact that Yue Qixiang robbed-"illegal act" is not an administrative violation! It's just that the administrative office can't judge his criminal responsibility! But at that time, the people's court should take the initiative to hand over the case to the public security organs and investigate the criminal facts of Yue Qixiang and others! If the court does not hand it over, it can at least fight against the statute of limitations, because Yao Huaping's prosecution to the court is to investigate Yue Qixiang's responsibility, that is, the case has been filed for prosecution as stipulated in Article 88 of the Criminal Law, and the public security organ has not filed a case for investigation, which should also be regarded as criminal private prosecution, so the statute of limitations in this case has been interrupted! I still hope that the public security organs will continue to file a case for investigation!
I am here to convey
Guanxian Public Security Bureau