presiding judge and judge:
According to Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 25 of the Lawyers Law, ××× Law Firm accepted the entrustment of the defendant Han Mou (male, 41 years old, a native of XX county, XX province, living in XX village, XX district, XX city) in this case, and appointed me as his defender. After accepting the entrustment, I carefully consulted all the case materials, met with the defendant, and conducted a lot of investigation and evidence collection. After careful investigation and rigorous analysis, I think that the indictment is not properly characterized in fact. The reasons are as follows:
Regarding the determination that Han constituted a crime in the indictment in this case:
The p>XX Municipal People's Procuratorate considered that Ms. Liu's death was caused by Han's beating behavior, and there was a causal relationship between Han's behavior and Ms. Liu's death. Han should have foreseen the consequences of beating others, which may cause other people's casualties. Because of her failure to foresee, Ms. Liu died, which was a negligence. She should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of negligent death, and therefore she filed a public prosecution with the XX Municipal People's Court.
Defender believes that Ms. Liu's death was purely an accident, and Han's behavior did not constitute a crime. The reason is: if Han is to be investigated for the crime of negligent death, then the premise and basis should be that Han should have foreseen the possible harmful consequences of his actions, but because of negligence, he did not foresee it or had foreseen it, but credulity could have avoided it, resulting in such consequences. The so-called "should be foreseen" should refer to the situation that normal and rational ordinary people can foresee based on their daily life and work experience under normal circumstances. Ms. Liu is no exception to the average person in appearance. It is impossible for Han to foresee that Ms. Liu is a "special physique person", and it is impossible to foresee that her own punch can cause Ms. Liu to be injured or even die. Han does not have the "foreseeing obligation" required in negligent crime, so his behavior belongs to the "accident" caused by unforeseeable reasons stipulated in Article 16 of the Criminal Law and does not constitute a crime.
To sum up,
Defender believes that Han in this case does not have the "foreseeing obligation" required in the negligent crime, so his behavior belongs to the "accident" caused by unforeseeable reasons stipulated in Article 16 of the Criminal Law and does not constitute a crime. In this case, it should be considered that Ms. Liu's death was purely an accident, and the defendant Han did not constitute a crime.
Defender: p>×× lawyer
×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××