On August 11, 2000, the People's Procuratorate of Liaoyuan City issued Ji'an Criminal Indictment (2000) No. 34, charging the defendant Hu Guoyou with robbery, snatching, and theft. The defendant Xiao Kui He committed the crime of robbery and robbery and initiated a public prosecution. This court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing on the case. The Liaoyuan Municipal People's Procuratorate appointed acting prosecutor Shi Yuan to appear in court to support the prosecution. Defendants Hu Guoyou and Xiao Kui and defender Song Chen attended the court to participate in the proceedings. The case has now been concluded.
The Liaoyuan City People’s Procuratorate alleged that the defendant Hu Guoyou, together with Xiao Kui and Qi Naijun (at large) went to Longshan District, Liaoyuan City on February 11, 2000 to rob, and stole a leather jacket and a telephone. , semiconductors, cigarettes, ID cards and more than 90 yuan in cash.
The defendant Hu Guoyou also together with Zhao Hengjiang (handled in another case) and Gong Li (handled in another case) carried out a robbery in Dadong District, Shenyang City on December 10, 1999, and stole two lighters and a combination knife. , more than 300 yuan in cash.
The defendants Hu Guoyou and Xiao Kui also robbed more than 600 yuan in cash at the Liaoyuan Railway Station vegetable market on February 15, 2000.
In addition, between August 1999 and January 2000, the defendant Hu Guoyou, together with Zhao Hengjiang and Liu Yu (at large), visited Fangjiajian Community in Dongling District, Shenyang City, and Hunhe District, Changqing District. There were three burglaries in Baocun, and TV sets, cameras, BP machines, cash and other items were stolen, with a total value of more than 10,000 yuan.
In response to the above-mentioned alleged facts, the prosecutor read out the statements of the victims Dong Xinglin, Cui Chaohua, Gong Chunling, Li Xia, and Sun Wen in court; the victim Zhan’s identification record at the public security agency, the testimony of the witness Tian Xingguo, and the crime The confessions of the suspects Zhao Changjiang and Gong Li, the investigation report of the public security agency, the criminal science and technology appraisal report of the public security agency, the valuation conclusion letter of the price department; the list of items seized and returned by the public security agency, the physical evidence, photos, etc. presented, and Prove the facts of robbery, robbery and theft by the two defendants.
The public prosecutor’s office believed that defendant Hu Guoyou’s behavior constituted the crime of robbery, robbery, and theft, and that defendant Xiao Kui’s behavior constituted the crime of robbery, robbery, and theft. After being captured, defendant Xiao Kui voluntarily confessed to the crime. Surrendered. The two defendants should be punished.
The defendants Hu Guoyou and Xiao Kui confessed to the alleged criminal facts. The defendant Hu Guoyou argued that he did not know that Qi Naijun and Gong Li were robbing, and he did not go there personally to rob, and requested a lighter punishment. The defendant Xiao Kui did not put forward a defense opinion. The two defendants did not raise any objection in court to the evidence provided by the public prosecution, nor did they adduce other relevant evidence.
The defense opinions put forward by Song Chen, the defender of the defendant Hu Guoyou, during the cross-examination process are: 1. The defendant Hu Guoyou played an auxiliary role in robbing the police station and was an accessory and should be given a lighter punishment. 2. The fact that the defendant Hu Guoyou cooperated with Xiao Kui in committing the robbery did not constitute a crime because the amount did not reach a large level. 3. The public prosecution accused the defendant Hu Guoyou of committing the crime of theft. There was only the victim's statement and the defendant's confession. There was no other evidence to prove it. Moreover, the defendant's confession was inconsistent with the contents of the victim's statement. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to accuse the defendant Hu Guoyou of committing the crime of theft. . The above defense opinions were made by defender Song Chen in response to the accusations made by the public prosecution agency. The evidence was insufficient and the defender did not provide further evidence to prove it.
After trial, this court analyzed and determined the facts and evidence alleged by both the prosecution and the defense as follows:
1. On February 11, 2000, the defendants Hu Guoyou and Xiao Kui, together with Qi Naijun (at large) rushed to the ballroom of the Liaoyuan Electric Machinery Factory. Qi Naijun deceived the victim Zhan, followed by Hu Guoyou and Xiao Kui. Qi Naijun entered Zhan's home, while Hu Guoyou and Xiao Kui were waiting outside. Qi Naijun used the prepared chocolate candy dissolved with "triazolam" provided by Hu Guoyou to anesthetize Zhan, and then took away a leather jacket, a BP machine, a telephone, a semiconductor, a cigarette, and his identity. certificate and RMB 90. Except for the leather jacket and BP machine, which were forced to be returned, the rest had been squandered.
The above-mentioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence: 1. The police report proves that the above-mentioned facts were voluntarily confessed by the defendant Xiao Kui to the public security organs before they were known to the public security organs and were investigated and verified by the public security organs. fact. According to Xiao Kui's confession, Hu Guoyou, Xiao Kui and Qi Naijun followed a man from the dance hall of the electrical machine factory. Accompanied by Qi Naijun, they took the man to his home. After anesthetizing the man with "triazolam", they took away a leather jacket. Parts, one BP machine, RMB 90.
2. The victim Zhan’s statement proves that Zhan led a woman to Zhan’s home in the ballroom of Liaoyuan Electric Machinery Factory, and the woman handed Zhan over to the public security agency for investigation. The appraisal certificate proves that the leather jacket is worth RMB 200 and the Casio BP machine is worth RMB 100. 5. The criminal scientific identification certificate proved that the chocolate candies seized from Hu Guoyou contained the drug "triazolam".
The above evidence was produced by the public prosecution. After cross-examination, neither the two defendants nor the defender raised any objection, and this court verified it. Based on the evidence reviewed by the above court, the public prosecutor's determination of the above facts is sufficient and sufficient to prove that the above robbery facts are established, and this court confirms it.
2. On December 10, 1999, the defendant Hu Guoyou, together with Zhao Hengjiang (handled in another case) and Gong Li (handled in another case), planned a robbery in the Dandong area of ??Shenyang City, Liaoning Province. Hu Guoyou and Zhao Hengjiang provided the drug "triazolam" to Gong Li. After Gong Li used the drug "triazolam" to anesthetize Dong Xinglin at the home of the victim Dong Xinglin, he robbed Dong Xinglin of a mobile phone, three lighters, a switchblade, and RMB. 300 yuan. The above-mentioned lighters and combination knives that were robbed have been recovered and returned, and the rest have been squandered.
The above facts are confirmed by the following evidence provided by the public prosecution agency: 1. The public security agency’s report proves that the criminal suspect Zhao Hengjiang voluntarily confessed to the Shenyang Municipal Public Security Agency, which was investigated and verified by the public security agency. According to the confessions of Zhao Hengjiang and Gong Li, after Hu Guoyou and Zhao Hengjiang provided the drug "triazolam" to Gong Li, Gong Li pretended to attend the appointment and went to the victim's home. After using the drug "triazolam" to anesthetize Dong Xinglin, she snatched the mobile phone away. One, a lighter, a combination knife, RMB 300. 3. A combination knife, RMB 300. 2. The statement of the victim Dong Xinglin proved the fact that Dong Xinglin was robbed of a mobile phone, three lighters, a combination knife and 300 yuan in cash by a woman using anesthesia at his home on Dadong Road, Dadong District, Shenyang City. 3. The public security agency found a lighter and a combination knife from Zhao Hengjiang. After Dong Xinglin identified them, they were indeed the stolen items. 4. The public security organs found a lighter and a combination knife from Zhao Hengjiang. After review, the defendant Hu Guoyou and his defender had no objection to the above-mentioned prosecution evidence. This court verified that it was true. This court determined the above-mentioned facts in accordance with the law.
3. Defendants Hu Guoyou and Xiao Kui rushed to the Liaoyuan Railway Station vegetable market on February 15, 2000. After premeditation, Hu Guoyou returned to the hotel to wait, and Xiao Kui smashed the market with bricks. Glass robbed Cui of 600 yuan. The money robbed has been squandered.
Neither the defendant nor the defender had any objection to this fact. The indictment provided by the public security agency proved that Xiao Kuixian truthfully confessed the facts verified by the public security agency after investigation, and the statement of the victim Cui Chaohua proved the time, place, and time of the crime. The amount of money robbed and other facts, and Xiao Kui confessed. This court has verified that this fact is true and the fact alleged by the public prosecution agency has been confirmed.
4. In January 2000, the defendant Hu Guoyou and Zhao Hengjiang went to Hunhebao Village, Wusan Township, Dongling District, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province, invaded a residential building from the balcony, and stole RMB 500. Yuan, two TV sets, two VCD machines, two BP machines and other clothing, with a total value of RMB 6,500.
The facts of this case are confirmed by the following evidence: 1. The case-solving report of the public security agency proves that the fact about this item was confessed by the co-defendant Zhao Hengjiang to the public security agency and was investigated and verified by the public security agency. 2. The victim Gong Chunling’s statement proved that around New Year’s Day in 2000, two TV sets, a VCD machine, 500 yuan in cash, leather jackets and other items were stolen from Gong Chunling’s home. 3. Co-defendant Zhao Hengjiang confessed to the public security organ that he and Hu Guoyou stole two TV sets and a VCD machine from a residential building in Hunhebao Village before the Spring Festival in 2000. 4. The Valuation and Appraisal Office of Liaoyuan City Price Bureau confirmed that two TV sets were worth 5,000 yuan and a VCD machine was worth 1,000 yuan.
The above evidence was presented and cross-examined by the public prosecution agency, and the defendant Hu Guoyou raised no objection. After trial, the court judged that the content of the victim Gong Chunling's statement obtained by the public security agency was consistent with the content of Zhao Hengjiang's confession, which was enough to prove that Zhao Hengjiang's confession was true. It also proved that the defendant Hu Guoyou was undoubtedly involved in the theft. Rather than what the defense said was that the defendant's confession was inconsistent with the victim's statement. Therefore, the defender's defense opinion is incorrect and will not be accepted by this court. The above facts and evidence are confirmed by this court.
Regarding the fact that the public prosecution agency accused the defendant Hu Guoyou of stealing in Fangjiajian Community together with Zhao Hengjiang and Liu Yu, and the fact that the defendant Hu Guoyou and Zhao Hengjiang committed the theft in Changqing Community. The Judgment Committee of this court held that although the facts of the two thefts charged by the public prosecution were mutually corroborated by the confessions of the defendant Hu Guoyou and the accomplice Zhao Hengjiang, the facts about the theft of property and other facts confessed by the defendants Hu Guoyou and Zhao Hengjiang were inconsistent with the confession of the victim Wu Suzhi. The facts such as the type and quantity of stolen goods stated by , Li Xia and Sun Wen are inconsistent and mutually corroborated with the confessions of Hu Guoyou and Zhao Hengjiang. The evidence is insufficient to prove the establishment of the two theft cases. There was insufficient evidence to prove the two thefts. The defendant's defense opinion is correct and should be adopted. Therefore, this court does not recognize the facts of the two thefts alleged by the public prosecution.
The defendant Xiao Kui actively assisted others to break into and steal for the purpose of illegal possession. His behavior constituted the crime of robbery and should be punished. The defendant Xiao Kui played a minor role in the crime of robbing a gangster and was an accessory, so he should be given a mitigated punishment. The defendant Xiao Kui was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for the crime of theft. After the execution of the sentence, if he commits a crime that should be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment or more within five years again, he is a repeat offender and should be severely punished. The defendant Xiao Kui was suspicious by nature. After being interrogated and educated by the judicial authorities, he voluntarily confessed his crime. According to Article 1, Item (1) of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws on Surrender and Meritorious Service", stipulates that it should be regarded as an automatic surrender. Article 67 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that anyone who voluntarily surrenders to the police after committing a crime and truthfully confesses his crime is surrender. The defendant Xiao Kui was able to truthfully confess the facts of the robbery during the trial, and his behavior complied with the provisions of this article. He surrendered and his punishment could be reduced. The above statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances, combined with defendant Xiao Kui’s criminal facts, circumstances and attitude of guilty plea, should result in defendant Xiao Kui being given a lighter punishment within the statutory sentencing range. The public prosecutor's office charged the defendant Xiao Kui with robbery and was found guilty. The opinion that he had the circumstances to surrender was correct and should be supported.
As for the fact that the defendant Hu Guoyou and Xiao Kui robbed each other, according to the victim's testimony, the amount of robbery was 600 yuan, which has not yet reached a relatively large amount. That is, this fact does not comply with the provisions of the People's Republic of China. The provisions of the first paragraph of Article 267 of the Criminal Law on the constitutive elements of the crime of robbery are not established if the circumstances are obvious, minor and the harm is not serious. According to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, it is a crime of robbery. The circumstances are minor and the harm is not serious. According to the provisions of Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the crime is not considered minor and the harm is not serious. **The provisions of Article 13 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China are not considered a crime. The defense opinions put forward by defender Song Chen are correct and should be supported. Therefore, the opinion of the public prosecution agency to accuse the two defendants of robbery cannot be established, and this court will not support it.
For the defendant Hu Guoyou, in accordance with Article 263, paragraph 1, Article 55, Article 56, and Article 50 of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China" The provisions of Article 8, Article 264, Paragraph 1 of Article 25, Paragraph 4 of Article 26, Article 52 and Article 69. For the defendant Xiao Kui, in accordance with Article 263, paragraph 1, Article 25, paragraph 1, Article 27, Article 55, and Article 56 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, , Article 58, Paragraph 1 of Article 65, Paragraph 1 of Article 67, Article 52, "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Specific Application of Laws on Surrender and Meritorious Service" No. According to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 1, the verdict is as follows: "Interpretation of Several Issues on the Specific Application of Law on the Surrender and Meritorious Service of the Defendant Xiao Kui". According to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 1, the sentence is sentenced to one year in prison and shall be sentenced to one year in prison in accordance with Article 264 of the Criminal Law. The Supreme People's Court has specific provisions on the punishments prescribed in Article 26, Paragraph 4 of Article 26, Paragraph 4 of Article 26, Article 52, Article 69, and Article 59. According to the provisions of Article 1, Item (1) of the Interpretation of Several Issues in the Application of Law, the verdict is as follows:
1. The defendant Hu Guoyou was convicted of robbery and was sentenced to twelve years in prison and deprived of political rights for two years. , and was fined 2,000 yuan; for the crime of theft, he was sentenced to three years in prison and fined 10,000 yuan for several crimes. The total sentence was 15 years. It was decided to be sentenced to 14 years in prison, deprived of political rights for two years, and punished. The fine is RMB 12,000 (the sentence shall be calculated from the date of execution of the judgment. If the sentence is detained before the execution of the judgment, one day of detention shall be equivalent to one day of the sentence, that is, from March 1, 2000 to February 28, 2014. end).
2. The defendant Xiao Kui was convicted of robbery and was sentenced to ten years in prison, deprived of political rights for one year, and fined RMB 1,000. (The sentence is calculated from the date of execution of the judgment. If the person is detained before the execution of the judgment, one day of detention will be equivalent to one day of the sentence, that is, from March 1, 2000 to February 28, 2010).
If you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you may appeal through this court or directly to the Jilin Provincial Higher People's Court within ten days from the second day after receiving the judgment. A written appeal shall be submitted in two original copies of the appeal petition.