On the afternoon of March 3th this year, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court sentenced the defendant Wang Peng to two years' imprisonment and fined him 3, yuan for the crime of illegally selling precious and endangered wild animals. Compared with the five-year imprisonment and a fine of 3, yuan sentenced in the first instance, the sentencing in the second instance was obviously lighter. Wang Peng, who was imprisoned for nearly two years, was released from prison on May 17th and regained his freedom. However, Wang Peng has not gone too far. On the morning of July 9, he went to Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court to file a complaint. (Legal Evening News, July 1) However, from the perspective of the protection of individual rights and the rule of law of individual voices, this seemingly "dead horse is a living horse doctor" process is probably more important than the result. As Wang Peng's wife Ren Panpan said, "They don't care much about the final appeal result, but they still want to exercise their legal rights." "They still hope to make the law more reasonable and promote the progress of the judiciary through Wang Peng's case." Complaint is originally the relief right given to the parties by law, and it is also the "defense line" to realize fairness and justice. It is by no means a complaint from the parties to the highest judicial organ according to law. Moreover, such a complaint action also keeps the case properly warm, and continues to be concerned by the legislature and public opinion, thus forming a strong joint force to promote legal restoration, which is also a kind of universal justice that is deeper than case justice. It is through this "parrot case" in Shenzhen that the public outcry is aroused, and recent cases such as "college students dig out the bird's nest" and "farmers pick three kinds of wild plants" that the lag of wildlife resources protection regulations begins to enter legislators' field of vision. According to the reporter's understanding from the attorney of Wang Peng, the party involved in the parrot case, the review proposal put forward in Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme Law on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Destroying Wildlife Resources has been replied by the the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) Law Working Committee, saying that "the Supreme Law has replied and a new judicial interpretation of wildlife resources crimes has been initiated". This means that this judicial interpretation, which has been implemented since June 65438+February 65438+February 1, 2, has finally ushered in a "major overhaul" moment after nearly 18 years of actual operation. According to this judicial interpretation, the "precious and endangered wild animals" stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 341 of the Criminal Law include not only the first-and second-class protected wild animals listed in the List of National Key Protected Wild Animals, but also the wild animals listed in Appendices I and II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Although these parrots in Wang Peng's case were not caught in the wild, they were all raised artificially. However, according to the judicial interpretation of "expanding the scope", they may be given a lighter sentence, but it is difficult to be "exonerated". the real "radicalism" is the change in the legislative level. According to the new IUCN endangered species standard system, the parrots sold in Wang Peng are only "low-risk", two grades lower than "endangered". "Domestication and breeding" and "wild" are also different concepts. If the Supreme People's Court's future judicial interpretation treats "wild animals" differently from "the above-mentioned domesticated and bred species", the future "criminals" such as Peng's trafficking will no longer be accused, and there will be a huge judicial blow, which is more in line with the spirit of international agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the trend of international animal and plant resources protection. Of course, the law also has room for adjustment. According to the current Wildlife Protection Law, the national list of key protected wild animals is "adjusted every five years according to the assessment". The List has not been adjusted for nearly 3 years since it was implemented on June 198965438+October 14. Although "artificial breeding" is allowed, the procedures are cumbersome and the checks are quite strict. According to the list of the State Forestry Administration, there are only 54 species of wild animals that individuals can apply for breeding, and only 5 species of parrots are for viewing only and cannot be bought or sold, which can be described as "open and true". The lag of these legislations is precisely the purpose and significance of Wang Peng's insistence on appealing. A "parrot case" is just a wave of rule of law in Wang Yang, but it is this case that has been interpreted and promoted together, drawing a picture of the country's rule of law bit by bit, and making us look forward to the future. an ignorant person is innocent. the news comes from phoenix.