2. Example of expression: Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province-Judgment on Criminal Matters -(20 15) Shirley Criminal Final Zi No.563.
The original public prosecution agency was the People's Procuratorate of Cangnan County, Zhejiang Province.
Appellant (defendant in the original trial) is in Chang 'an. Now detained in Cangnan County Detention Center.
Appellant (defendant in the original trial) Xiao is currently detained in Cangnan County Detention Center.
The People's Court of Cangnan County, Zhejiang Province tried the case that the People's Procuratorate of Cangnan County accused the defendants Yu Chang 'an and Xiao Mou of committing fraud in the original trial, and made a criminal judgment (20 14)No. 1422 on March 20/5/6. The defendants in the original trial, Yu Chang 'an and Xiao Mou, refused to accept the appeal. Our college has formed a collegial panel according to law. After reading the documents and questioning the appellant, it decided not to hold a trial because the facts were clear. The trial is now over.
The original judgment found that:
? 1.20 13 04 18, the defendant Xiao mou and "adong" (handled separately) conspired to rent a vehicle for mortgage loan, and Xiao mou rented a Zhejiang CC ×××××× car (value) from Hong Xin car rental office in Chen Mou B, No.348 Yongning Road, Oubei Town, Yongjia County. The car involved has now been taken back by the victim.
? 2.2065438+On May 29th, 2003, the defendant Yu Changan conspired with Jin Shunliang (handled separately) and Ding Mingjun (unknown) to lease a vehicle mortgage loan, pretending to be Chen as the actual lessee in Chang 'an, and rented the victim Liu's Zhejiang from Wenzhou Zhongxin Car Rental Co., Ltd., No.49, Yongzhong Luodong North Street, Longwan District, Wenzhou City, where the victims Liu and Cai were located. After Jin Shun Liang forged motor vehicle driving license, ID card and other materials, he borrowed 36,000 yuan from the victim Chen Mou Jia in Chang 'an in the name of the owner Liu. The car involved has now been taken back by the victim.
? 3.2065438+June, 2003 14, Yu Chang 'an and Ding Mingjun went to Zhongxin Car Rental Co., Ltd., No.49, Yongzhong Luodong North Street, Longwan District, Wenzhou City. Yu Chang 'an pretended to be Chen as the actual lessee, and Ding Mingjun signed a lease contract to defraud the victim Cai's Zhejiang C ××. Later, Yu Changan mortgaged his car to Chen Mou Jia and borrowed 36,000 yuan for gambling. The car involved has now been taken back by the victim.
? The evidences to prove the above facts are: the statements of the victims B, Liu, Cai and Chen Jia, the second-hand car sales contract, the personal loan contract, the vehicle handover statement, the driver's license, the price appraisal opinion, criminal judgment, the administrative punishment decision, the release certificate, the process of being brought to justice, demographic data, and the confessions of the defendants Xiao and Yu Changan.
? The court of first instance found the defendant Yu Changan guilty of fraud, sentenced him to five years and six months in prison and fined him 50,000 yuan. Defendant Xiao was convicted of fraud, sentenced to three years and six months in prison and fined RMB 30,000. Revoke the probation of Xiao, the defendant in criminal judgment, No.542, People's Court of ouhai district, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province (2013); He was sentenced to six months in prison and fined 20 thousand yuan for the crime of credit card fraud. Decided to execute a fixed-term imprisonment of three years and nine months and impose a fine of 50,000 yuan; The defendant Yu Changan * * * was ordered to pay back the illegal income of RMB72,000, and the defendant Xiao Mou * * * paid back the illegal income of RMB46,500, all of which were returned to the victim Chen Mou Jia.
Yu Chang 'an, the defendant in the original trial, appealed that (1) in the second paragraph, he did not rent a car from Zhongxin Car Rental Company, but only provided a guarantee for Jin Shunliang's loan. (2) In the third section, he instructed Ding Mingjun to rent a car, because he didn't have a driver's license and renting a car was convenient for gambling, so he didn't use the car as a mortgage. And when borrowing money, he informed the victim that Chen Mou Jia's vehicle was leased and had paid the interest for three months continuously 1.2 million; In addition, the appraisal opinion overestimated the value of the vehicle. (3) I used my friend Chen's identity to rent a car in Zhongxin Company before, and I also introduced my friends to rent a car in this company many times. The purpose of using my identity is not to illegally own a vehicle. The original sentence is extremely heavy, so I want to revise it.
? Xiaomou, the defendant in the original trial, appealed that his real identity was to rent a car, and the mortgaged vehicle had been returned by the leasing company. There was no default in renting a car, which did not cause losses to the owner. There is no purpose of illegal possession when renting a car, and the value of the vehicle should not be used for conviction and sentencing; The actual loan is only 46,500 yuan. After borrowing money, he kept in touch with the victim Chen Mou Jia until Chen Mou Jia took the police to capture him. The sentence in the original trial was extremely heavy, and the sentence was changed.
The facts and evidence found in the trial of the second instance are consistent with those found in the judgment of the first instance, and our court confirms them. In the second section, the victim Cai identified Yu Chang 'an as the actual renter. Although Yu Changan argued that he didn't actually rent a car, he even called the car dealership in the name of "Chen" to help Jin Shunliang rent a car through "Ding Mingjun", and then provided a guarantee for Jin Shunliang, knowing that Jin Shunliang forged the identity document of owner Liu, and asked the victim Chen Mou Jia for a mortgage loan. In the third section, the fact that Yu Chang 'an rented a car that night to apply for a mortgage loan was confirmed by documentary evidence such as settlement book Tenant's Situation and Vehicle Handover, Personal Loan Contract and the testimony of owner Cai and borrower Chen Mou Jia. Yu Changan also confessed to the fact that he had planned to rent a car with others to raise gambling funds during the investigation stage. His confession of renting a car was not consistent with the facts ascertained, so it was not adopted. Although Yu Changan argued that he had paid the victim Chen Mou Jia three months' interest, Chen Mou Jia refused to admit that Yu Changan could not provide evidence to prove the fact, so this argument was not accepted. As for the price appraisal opinions, they are made by qualified price appraisal institutions according to legal procedures. Yu Chang 'an's objection to the appraisal opinion is insufficient and will not be adopted.
? Our court believes that the appellants Yu Chang 'an and Xiao Mou colluded to defraud other people's property for the purpose of illegal possession, and the amount was huge, which constituted the crime of fraud. During the probation period of probation, Xiaomou found that there were other crimes pending before the verdict was pronounced, so he should revoke the probation and impose a combined punishment for several crimes. Yu Chang 'an was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for intentional crimes, and deliberately committed crimes that should be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment or more within five years after the execution of the punishment. He is a recidivist and should be severely punished. The original judgment In view of the fact that the stolen car in this case has been recovered, Xiaomou has a frank plot and has been given a lighter punishment. Yu Changan and Xiao Mou colluded with others in advance, and in order to raise gambling funds when they were unable to repay the car, and Yu Changan forged the identity of the lessee and used the car as a mortgage loan in the name of the owner, which shows that they subjectively had the intention of illegal possession. The other two argued that there was no purpose of illegal possession of cars, and that the amount of crimes should be calculated according to the amount of loans, which did not comply with the law and was not adopted. The original judgment and conviction are accurate, the sentencing is appropriate, and the trial procedure is legal. Accordingly, according to the provisions of Article 225, paragraph 1 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Articles 266, 25, paragraph 1, 65, paragraph 3, 77, paragraph 1, 69 and 64 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the ruling is as follows:
? Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
? This is the final verdict.
? Presiding judge Wu Hai
? Judge Tu Fang Ling
? Acting Judge Xia Ning 'an
201April 22, 5
Bookkeeper Zhao