Plaintiff (defendant in the first instance and appellant in the second instance) Zhang Haiming, male, was born in June of 1968 1 year, and the execution has been completed.
Defender Li xx, lawyer of Henan Ji Guo Law Firm.
The People's Procuratorate of huixian city accused the defendant Zhang Haiming of committing corruption, and the People's Court of huixian city made a criminal judgment of (2004) Keiko Zi Chu Zi No.49 on 2004 1 month 15. Defendant Zhang Haiming refused to accept the appeal. Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court made a criminal ruling (2004)No. 108 on August 26th, 2004, and sent it back for retrial. The People's Court of huixian city made a criminal judgment of (2004) Hui Penalty Zi Chu Zi No.49-1on/month/month/5, 2004. The People's Procuratorate of huixian city lodged a protest and the defendant Zhang Haiming appealed. Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court made a criminal judgment (2005)No. 19 on June 5, 2005. After the above judgment became legally effective, Zhang Haiming lodged a complaint with our court. On June 6, 2006, our hospital made a criminal judgment (2006) Yu Fa Li Xing Zi No.4, instructing Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court to retry. Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court made a criminal ruling (2006)No. 13 on June 5, 2007. Zhang Haiming still refuses to accept, and lodged a complaint with our hospital again. On October 30th, 2009, our hospital made the criminal decision (2008) Yu Fa Shen Zi No.24 and sent it back for retrial. Our college has formed a collegial panel according to law. After reading the papers, I asked the complainant Zhang Haiming and listened to the defense opinions of the defenders. The facts of the case were clear and I decided not to hold a trial. The trial is now over.
Huixian city People's Court found out in the first instance that:
(1) During his tenure as a member of the Party Committee of Chengguan Town, huixian city, the defendant actually paid 2360 yuan in cash to Hou xx, the producer of titanium plates and photo frames, and on March 16, 20065438, he obtained Yang xx's signature for reimbursement with an invoice with an amount of 22672 yuan, thus defrauding public funds of 20042 yuan; In the process of handling the 2002 commendation prize, the defendant actually paid 3080 yuan in cash to the panel and frame producer Hou Xx, but on April 1 1 day, 2002, he asked Chen Xx to issue an invoice with the amount of 6700 yuan for reimbursement, thus defrauding 3620 yuan of public funds.
(2) 1999 to 2002, huixian city Chengguan Town Government took away firecrackers worth 38 132 1.30 yuan from Xinlian Shopping Mall. On March 6th, 2003, defendant Zhang Haiming issued receipts for 38 1, 32 1.30 yuan to Xinlian Shopping Mall on behalf of the town government. On April 22, 2003, when the defendant settled the bill with Xinlian Shopping Mall, he proposed that there was no bill for 7,200 yuan of rice, and asked Du Xx to pay 7,200 yuan more when issuing a receipt for firecrackers. Du xx issued two receipts, one for 300,000 yuan and the other for 88650 yuan. After that, give Du xx a cash check of 65,438+10,000 yuan. After Du xx withdrew money, he gave cash of 7,200 yuan and misappropriated public funds of 7,200 yuan.
The above facts are proved by the Personnel Department of Chengguan Town Organization, two reimbursement documents, the testimony of witnesses Han xx, Hou xx, Zhang xx, Yang xx, Chen X, Zhao xx, Du xx, Sun xx and Li xx, as well as the list of documents, accounting vouchers of Xinlian Shopping Mall, accounting vouchers of Chengguan Town, cash cheque of Agricultural Bank and receipt of huixian city People's Procuratorate.
The huixian city People's Court held that the defendant Zhang Haiming, as a state functionary, illegally possessed 30,862 yuan of public property by taking advantage of his position, which constituted the crime of corruption, and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and suspended for four years. The illegal income of 30,862 yuan will be recovered.
The People's Procuratorate of huixian city lodged a protest, but Zhang Haiming, the defendant in the original trial, refused to plead guilty and should not be suspended. Zhang Haiming, the defendant in the original trial, appealed, and his defender argued that Zhang Haiming did not commit corruption when handling the bonuses of the 200/KLOC-0 and 2002 commendation conferences; During the Mid-Autumn Festival and Spring Festival in 2002, the welfare expenditure of staff and related comrades was 7,200 yuan. It is not illegally owned by individuals and should not be regarded as corruption.
The facts and evidence of the first crime identified by Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court in the second instance are the same as those in the first instance. At the trial of the second instance, the testimonies of witnesses Wang xx, Wang xx and Li xx presented by the procuratorate all confirmed that the appellant paid benefits to employees during the Mid-Autumn Festival in 2002 and the Spring Festival in 2003, and went to the store to pick up the goods by ticket. Wang xx and Wang xx also confirmed what Zhang Haiming said when he held a corporate plenary meeting. This is mutually confirmed with the testimony, welfare bill and Zhang Haiming's confession and excuse of witnesses Wang xx, Li xx, Zhang xx and Wang xx in the first-instance cross-examination, so the fact of the second crime cannot be determined.
The second instance of Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court held that the appellant Zhang Haiming, as a national staff member, took advantage of his position to illegally occupy more than 20,000 yuan of public property, which constituted a crime of corruption. In view of the appellant Zhang Haiming's active return of stolen goods, which shows certain repentance and will not endanger the society any more, he can be sentenced to probation. The original judgment and conviction are accurate, the applicable law is correct, the trial procedure is legal, but the sentencing is improper. Huixian city People's Procuratorate's protest reason will not be accepted. Zhang Haiming's appeal and his defenders argued that Zhang Haiming did not accept the reasons and opinions of corruption when handling the bonuses of the 200/KLOC-0 and 2002 commendation conferences, and the reasons and opinions that individuals did not illegally occupy the welfare of 7,200 yuan were adopted. Revoke the criminal judgment of huixian city People's Court (2004) No.49-1according to law; Appellant Zhang Haiming was convicted of corruption and sentenced to two years' imprisonment and suspended for three years. The illegal income of 23,662 yuan will be recovered.
Zhang Haiming, the defendant in the original trial, complained to Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court that there was no corruption in the bonus processing of the 200 1 and 2002 commendation conferences. Zhao xx is not only a key witness in this case, but also an interested party. His eight testimonies are contradictory and cannot be identified. Defenders argued that the witness testimony accepted in the second-instance judgment was contradictory, and it should be determined by forensic accountants that Zhang Haiming did not possess the restitution, and Zhang Haiming was not guilty.
Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court found out the same facts and evidence as the second trial. Accordingly, Zhang Haiming, the defendant in the original trial, as a state functionary, took advantage of his position to illegally occupy more than 20,000 yuan of public property, which constituted the crime of corruption. The original judgment and conviction are accurate, the sentencing is appropriate, and the trial procedure is legal. Zhang Haiming's complaint grounds were not accepted. In accordance with the provisions of Article 206 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), our court ruled to uphold the criminal judgment of first instance. New Penalty (2005) 19.
Zhang Haiming, the defendant in the original trial, filed a complaint, and his defender argued that the evidence on which the judgment in the original trial was based was inaccurate and insufficient, and the eight testimonies of witness Zhao xx were inconsistent and could not be used as evidence; Zhang Haiming only signed two blank invoices and gave them to Zhao xx. These two invoices can't prove the fact that Zhang Haiming reimbursed or settled Zhao xx.
The facts and evidence found in our retrial are the same as those found in the second trial and the original trial, but the referee in the original trial found that it was wrong for the complainant Zhang Haiming to actually pay 2360 yuan in cash to the titanium plate and photo frame producer Hou xx in the process of handling the 200 1 commendation bonus. According to Hou xx's testimony, it should be corrected to 2630 yuan. With regard to the reasons for the complainant's complaint and the defense opinions of his defenders, after investigation, Zhao xx's eight testimonies were inconsistent with the proof of how to pay the two fake invoices for reimbursement, but the proof of how to reimburse the two fake invoices and pay the amount contained in the fake invoices as an account was always consistent. Whether Zhang Haiming receives the cash or cancels the previous loan will not affect Zhang Haiming's decision to own the money. And witnesses Han xx, Hou xx and Zhang xx confirmed that Han xx took two blank invoices after checking out; Witnesses Yang XX and Chen XX confirmed that Zhang Haiming had two invoices for his signature. The testimony of the above-mentioned witnesses and the two invoices handled by Zhang Haiming confirm each other, which is enough to identify the fact that Zhang Haiming falsely invoiced for reimbursement. The reasons for the complainant's complaint and the defense opinions of his defenders cannot be established.
We believe that the complainant, Zhang Haiming, as a national staff member, took advantage of his position to embezzle 23,662 yuan of public funds through false invoicing, which has constituted the crime of corruption. The original judgment found the facts clear, the evidence was true and sufficient, the conviction was accurate, the sentencing in the second and retrial was appropriate, and the trial procedure was legal. In accordance with the provisions of Article 206 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the first paragraph of Article 312 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the ruling is as follows:
Maintain the criminal ruling of Xinxiang Intermediate People's Court. (2006)No. 13 criminal judgment 19 (2005).
This is the final verdict.