The difference between the petition and the appeal is 1
An appeal is a document that the parties to a civil, administrative or criminal case appeal to the people's court at the next higher level in accordance with legal procedures and time limits if they refuse to accept the judgments or rulings of first instance made by local people's courts at all levels.
Petition refers to that the parties to a criminal case, the victims and their families, or the parties to other civil cases or their legal representatives, who are dissatisfied with the legally effective judgment or ruling, lodge a complaint with the people's court or the people's procuratorate (criminal case) and request to re-examine the plea of the case.
The only difference between the two is that the appeal is to appeal to the higher people's court against the judgment or ruling of first instance.
An appeal is an appeal to a people's court or a people's procuratorate (criminal case) against a legally effective judgment or ruling of the second instance.
Model civil appeal II
Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Wei Moumou, female, 19xx, born in March, Han nationality, individual, living at No.63, * * Village, * * Office, Binzhou City.
Appellee (plaintiff of first instance): Li Moumou, female, 19xx, born on May 29th, Han nationality, living at No.622, Bohai 5th Road, * * District, * * City.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Gao Moumou, male, born on April 7th of 19xx, Han nationality, individual, living in the dormitory of China Construction Bank, Xinhua Street, * * District, * * City.
The appellant refuses to accept the civil judgment of * * District People's Court on July 4th (20xx)* Min Chu Er Zi No.422, and now appeals.
Appeal request
1. The judgment of first instance finds that the facts are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, the applicable law is wrong, and the procedure is illegal, and requests the court of second instance to cancel the judgment of first instance, change the judgment according to law or send it back for retrial.
2. All the litigation costs of the first and second instance shall be borne by the appellee.
grounds of appeal
First, the first-instance judgment found that the facts were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, the applicable law was wrong, and the appellee was deliberately biased.
(1) On July 9th, 20xx, the appellee Li Moumou signed a house lease contract with the appellant Wei Moumou, stipulating that the appellant Wei Moumou would lease the house A 1-C59 of Bohai International Plaza to the appellee Li Moumou for use, and the lease period was from July 60tx to July 9th, 20xx.
Since the two parties signed the contract, the house has been used by the appellee Li Moumou. The court of first instance also found that according to the principle of relativity of the contract, Li Moumou should return the house to the appellant Wei Moumou after the lease term expires. However, since the two parties signed the contract, the appellee Li Moumou has been using the house and has not returned the house to the appellant Wei Moumou. As of July 4th, 20xx, the court of first instance made a judgment that the agreed time limit for both parties to sign the contract was five days short, and the contract had been fulfilled. During the one-year period when the appellee Li used the house, the beneficial use right of the house was in Li's hands, and Li had been operating normally. According to Article 58 of the Contract Law, after the contract is invalid or dissolved, the property obtained from the contract shall be returned.
However, the appellee Li Moumou has never returned the house to the appellant Wei Moumou, who has been using the proceeds.
And according to the provisions of the law, the most basic principle of the law is the principle of fairness. The first-instance judgment that the appellant returned the appellee Li Moumou155,000 yuan obviously violated the principle of fairness of the law. In our country, both the tort liability in tort law and the liability for breach of contract in contract law always run through a basic principle of law, that is, the principle of damages.
The purpose of law is to make up for the losses suffered by the infringement of the legal interests protected by law and restore the legal interests to the state before the infringement.
However, the law prohibits the parties from obtaining extra-legal benefits. Specifically, in this case, the appellee Li Moumou has been using the house and has not returned it to the appellant Wei Moumou so far. The one-year house lease contract has been fulfilled, and the corresponding consideration has been paid for the house lease fee. However, the first-instance judgment ignored this fact and made a wrong judgment, which seriously damaged the appellant's legitimate rights and interests. The appellant refused to accept the judgment.
(2) The judgment of first instance misinterpreted the law and there was an error in the application of the law.
One of the purposes of judicature is to clarify the uncertain legal relationship, and the purpose of law is to solve and stop disputes, take into account the legitimate rights and interests of all parties according to the law, and try our best to achieve social fairness and justice.
In this case, the housing lease contract relationship between the appellee Gao Moumou and the appellant Wei Moumou and the housing lease contract relationship between Wei Moumou and Li Moumou is a coherent and inseparable legal relationship based on the same fact. The fundamental reason is that the appellee Gao has no right to sublet. The judgment of first instance cannot dismantle the inseparable legal relationship based on the same fact. If the judgment in the first instance is correct, the appellee Wei Moumou should also be ordered to return the rental fee.
Because the appellee Gao Moumou is not a party to this case, but also a defendant in the first instance, but the judgment of the first instance evaded this issue, artificially dismantling the original inseparable legal relationship, and obviously deliberately favoring the appellee.
Combined with the contents of the civil judgment of * * * Court (20xx) Binmin Erchuzi No.364, the defendant Gao Moumou was not sentenced to bear any responsibility, which shows that the court of first instance's behavior of favoring Gao Moumou is obvious and cannot be accepted.
Two, the first-instance judgment violates legal procedures, resulting in unfair substantive judgment due to illegal procedures.
According to the provisions of Article 146 of the Civil Procedure Law, a case tried by the people's court by summary procedure shall be concluded within three months from the date of filing, that is to say, the trial period of summary procedure is three months, the filing time of first instance is August of 20xx, the judgment time is July 4 of 20xx, and the trial period is nearly one year.
However, after the judgment of the first instance was made on July 4, 20xx, it was not delivered to the appellant until February 20, 2009, which dragged on for seven months. The procedure was seriously illegal, which caused the fairness and authority of the judgment to disappear in the appellant's mind.
According to the fourth paragraph of Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law, the judgment of the original trial violated legal procedures and affected the correct judgment of the case. The court of second instance shall rule to revoke the original judgment and send it back to the people's court that originally tried it for retrial.
The first-instance judgment seriously violated the procedure, resulting in unfair substantive judgment and loss of legal credibility. I hope that the court of second instance will attach great importance to this.
To sum up, the court of first instance found that the facts were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, the applicable law was wrong, and legal procedures were violated, and requested the court of second instance to ascertain the facts according to law and safeguard the appellant's legitimate rights and interests.
I am here to convey
* * City Intermediate People's Court
Appellant: Wei Moumou
20xx February 25th
Model essay on criminal complaint 3
The complainant is Li xx, male, 19xx born on July 29th, Han nationality, from xx county, xx province, with junior high school education, unemployed and living. Xx village, xx town, xx city, xx province.
Li xx, the complainant, lodged a complaint againstNo.19xx12 (19xx) X, which was made by the Intermediate People's Court of xx.
Requested item
Request to revoke the original ruling, re-hear the case, and change the sentence according to law, and declare innocence.
Facts and reasons
19xx On September 3rd, the people's court of xx County, xx Province sentenced me to intentional injury with a criminal incidental civil judgment of (19xx) No. Xx, sentenced me to three years in prison and compensated the plaintiff for medical expenses of 5000 yuan.
I refused to accept it and appealed on the grounds that the original judgment found the facts wrong. On June19xx1June 12, the Intermediate People's Court of xxxx City rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
The complainant was released from prison on 5 March 20xx.
The complainant believes that the original ruling found the facts wrong and the conviction evidence was insufficient.
The grounds for appeal are as follows:
First, the original ruling found that the facts were indeed wrong and the nature was not allowed.
The original ruling found that: "... during the dispute, the appellant Li xx punched the victim Zhang xx in the left eye, causing Zhang to fall to the ground in a coma." This is inconsistent with the facts of the case.
In fact, there is a creditor-debtor relationship between the victim and the complainant. 19xx65438+1On October 25th, the victim Zhang xx came to the complainant's house to collect debts, but the complainant was really unable to pay back due to business losses, and promised to pay back if he had money.
However, Zhang xx smashed furniture in the complainant's home, and when the complainant stopped him, Zhang xx punched and kicked him. The complainant only called back when he couldn't bear it. The victim didn't go into a coma after being beaten, but ran away.
The above facts can be confirmed by the fact that neighbors Zhao xx and Zhou xx were present at that time.
However, neither the first-instance judgment nor the second-instance ruling has determined the cause of the case and the fact that the victim was at fault.
The plaintiff believes that when the victim committed illegal infringement, the plaintiff took self-defense in order to protect property rights and personal rights. Although the victim was slightly injured, it did not obviously exceed the necessary limit, and the nature of the behavior should be considered as self-defense.
Two, the original ruling on the basis of conviction and sentencing evidence is not true and insufficient.
During the trial, the witness testimony presented by the procuratorate is contradictory, and even the contents of the testimony of the same witness twice are contradictory.
In the absence of other evidence, the court accepted the above-mentioned witness testimony against the complainant, and the authenticity and legality of the witness testimony were in doubt.
The testimony of witnesses Zhao xx and Zhou xx completely confirmed the fact that the victim smashed things and hit the complainant at that time, but the court refused to accept the letter without reason, so the evidence of the ruling was insufficient.
Third, the original referee's sentence was extremely heavy.
To take a step back, even if the complainant's behavior constitutes a crime of intentional injury, the court should consider a lighter or mitigated punishment because of the plot of excessive defense. However, the court sentenced the upper limit stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 234 of the Criminal Law, which is obviously a very heavy sentence.
To sum up, the complainant believes that his behavior belongs to self-defense and does not constitute a crime.
Therefore, according to the provisions of Article 203 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), our hospital hereby appeals to cancel the original judgment, reopen the trial, and change the acquittal according to law.
I am here to convey
Higher People's Court of xx Province
Attached:
1. 1 original judgment and ruling.
2. Witnesses Zhao xx and Zhou xx live at No.6, No.8, 1 1 and No.3, xx Village, xx Town, xx City.
Complainant Li xx
Xxxx，xxxx，xx，xx