The Supreme People's Court's interpretation of the application of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC)?
Article 241 When trying a case of public prosecution of first instance, the people's court shall make a judgment or ruling respectively according to the following circumstances:
(1) If the facts of the accusation are clear, the evidence is true and sufficient, and the defendant is found guilty according to law, a guilty verdict shall be made; ?
(2) If the facts of the indictment are clear, the evidence is true and sufficient, and the charges charged are inconsistent with the charges found in the trial, a guilty verdict shall be made according to the charges found in the trial; ?
(three) the facts of the case are clear, the evidence is true and sufficient, and the defendant is found innocent according to law, and the judgment declares the defendant innocent; ?
(4) If the defendant cannot be found guilty due to insufficient evidence, the defendant shall be acquitted on the grounds that the alleged crime cannot be established due to insufficient evidence; ?
(5) If some facts of the case are clear and the evidence is true and sufficient, a judgment of guilt or innocence shall be made; The part with unclear facts and insufficient evidence shall not be identified; ?
(6) If the defendant is under the age of sixteen and has not been subjected to criminal punishment, the defendant shall be declared not to be criminally responsible; ?
(7) If the defendant is a mental patient and causes harmful results when he cannot identify or control his behavior, and he will not be punished, he shall be sentenced to declare that the defendant is not criminally responsible; ?
(8) If the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has expired and there is no need for prosecution, or if the punishment is exempted after pardon, an order shall be made to terminate the trial; ?
(9) If the defendant dies, an order shall be made to terminate the trial; If innocence can be confirmed according to the facts of the case and the evidence ascertained, the defendant shall be declared innocent by judgment. ?
In case of the circumstances specified in the second paragraph of the preceding paragraph, the people's court shall listen to the opinions of both the prosecution and the defense before making a judgment to ensure that the defendant and the defender fully exercise their right to defense. If necessary, the court session can be reopened, and the prosecution and the defense can be organized to debate on the constitutive elements of the defendant's behavior. ?
Extended data:
?
Case: procedural guarantee of changing charges and determination standard of trial scope of criminal cases?
Shanghai Minhang District People's Procuratorate accused: At 3 o'clock in the morning of 20 1 1654381October 30, the defendant Shen gathered the defendant Xu to use white gloves, hammers and other tools, and the defendant Xu climbed with ropes and turned into Room 202 of the above address from the window. ?
Subsequently, Shen and Xu tied Yuan's neck with a rope, covered his mouth, punched his head, and demanded 50,000 yuan from him, but Yuan didn't call the police. It was identified that Yuan's trauma caused hematoma under the scalp of the left frontotemporal region and the left occipital region and contusion of both eyes, which constituted a minor injury of Grade II. 201212 On February 20th, the defendant Shen was arrested by public security personnel. On February 7th, 20 13, the defendant Xu voluntarily surrendered himself and truthfully confessed the above facts. ?
The public prosecution agency believes that the defendant Shen's behavior constitutes robbery, and the amount is huge, which is an attempted crime; The defendant Xu's behavior constitutes a crime of trespassing and is a crime of * * *. In view of Xu's confession, it cannot be considered that he has surrendered himself. ?
The Minhang District People's Court of Shanghai held through trial that the defendant Shen's means of threatening the victim with violence was slightly slower, lighter and wider than that of ordinary robbery crimes, and he did not rob the money on the spot after sneaking into the victim's house, but asked the victim to hand over the money within a time limit, which was in line with the characteristics of extortion.
The public prosecution agency accused the defendant Xu of committing the crime of illegally invading the house and confirmed it. Accordingly, the verdict is as follows: 1. The defendant was convicted of extortion, sentenced to two years and six months in prison and fined RMB 5,000; Defendant Xu was guilty of trespassing and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. ?
After the verdict was pronounced, the Minhang District People's Procuratorate of Shanghai refused to accept it and protested on the grounds that the original judgment had wrongly defined Shen. The court of second instance held that the facts of the original judgment were unclear, and made a ruling to revoke the original judgment and send it back for retrial. ?
The Minhang District People's Court of Shanghai formed a collegial panel according to law and re-tried the case. The collegial panel believes that the difficulties in the trial of this case lie in: first, what the actions of the two defendants meet constitutes a crime; Secondly, in view of the fact that the public prosecution agency accused the defendant Xu of committing theft, can it be determined that Xu's behavior constitutes robbery according to the existing facts, and can it be directly punished with a heavier crime (robbery)?
Regarding the first difficulty in the trial, the collegial panel held that the actions of the defendants Shen and Xu constituted robbery (attempted entry). The specific reasons are as follows: first, the defendant has the subjective purpose of illegal possession. The victim in this case, Yuan, denied the fact that he owed Shen money before, and Shen did not provide the court with evidence of Yuan's legally due creditor's rights, and even the evidence of debt disputes between the two parties could not be provided.
On the day of the incident, Shen and others did not contact Yuan in advance, nor did they enter Yuan's home by ringing the doorbell and other normal means. But carrying gloves, hammers and other crime tools. After staying in Yuan's residential area for a long time, Xu sneaked into the victim's house by climbing wires, violently beat the victim, causing minor injuries and demanding property from the victim.
Judging from the behavior means, implementation process and consequences of the two defendants, it is obvious that they have the purpose of illegally occupying other people's money, which is far from the so-called "asking for opinions" or defending rights. Second, Shen and Xu used violence and coercion to extort money from the victim on the spot.
After the two defendants sneaked into Yuan's home and were found, the three struggled. Shen and Xu violently beat Yuan by covering their mouths, boxing their heads and faces. After being recognized by Yuan, Shen still asked Yuan for money. After Yuan paid Shen 50,000 yuan, Shen and Xu left.
Among the evidence in this case, documentary evidence, physical evidence and the victim's statement, such as injury inspection notice, hospital inspection records, expert opinions, photos, on-site inspection records, evidence collection list, mobile phone short message records, etc., can mutually confirm. Defendant Xu also confessed many times that there was a scuffle between the two sides during the investigation and interrogation.
Therefore, the two defendants subjectively had the purpose of illegal possession, and objectively used violence and coercion to extort the victim's money on the spot, causing minor injuries to the victim and infringing on the victim's personal and property rights and interests, and should be punished as robbery.
Regarding the second difficulty in the trial, the collegial panel held that regarding the characterization of the defendant Xu's behavior, the facts identified in the indictment of the public prosecution agency were as follows: "The defendants Shen and Xu beat the victim Yuan by means of rope strangling, pouting and boxing the head, and asked him for 50,000 yuan, but the police failed because of the victim Yuan."
Accordingly, the facts accused by the public prosecution agency have included the violent extortion of the property of the victim Yuan by the defendants Shen, Xu and * * *, which obviously cannot be covered and evaluated by the crime of illegally invading the house. During the trial, the court listened to the opinions of both the prosecution and the defense on the relevant facts and cross-examined the evidence.
In the existing evidence, the victim Yuan made it clear that both Xu and Shen had violently beaten him and knew the fact that Shen wanted to ask Yuan for money. The defendant Xu also confessed to this during the investigation and prosecution stage. Relevant injury inspection notices, expert opinions, on-site investigation records of public security organs and physical evidence such as wires, gloves, hammers and glasses collected from the scene can also confirm the contents of the victim's statement.
Therefore, it can be concluded that Xu participated in the violent robbery of the victim and caused minor injuries to the victim. On the one hand, the indictment accuses Xu of taking money from the victim by violent means, on the other hand, in the final characterization, it is based only on the crime of illegally invading the house, and the charges charged are obviously inconsistent with the facts identified. According to the facts found in the trial and the evidence cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defense, the facts of Xu's participation in the robbery are clear and the evidence is true and sufficient, so he should be punished as robbery. ?
Accordingly, the Minhang District People's Court of Shanghai made the following judgment according to law: 1. The defendant was convicted of robbery, sentenced to five years and six months in prison, deprived of political rights for one year, and fined RMB 7,000. 2. Defendant Xu was convicted of robbery, sentenced to three years' imprisonment and fined RMB 3,000; Three, the tools seized in the case shall be confiscated. ?
After the verdict was pronounced, the defendants Shen and Xu both appealed on the grounds that their actions did not constitute robbery and belonged to embezzlement. After trial, the court of second instance held that according to the appellant's criminal facts, nature, circumstances, degree of harm to society and his position and role in the same crime, the judgment of first instance was not improper and the trial procedure was legal. On this basis, a second-instance ruling of "rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment" was made. ?
China court network-the procedural guarantee of changing the charges and the determination standard of the trial scope of criminal cases
Baidu Encyclopedia-Explanation on the Application of People's Republic of China (PRC) Criminal Procedure Law