(20 12)x punishes Chu Zinuo. xx
People's Procuratorate of one province and one city.
Defendant Zou Mou, male,1born on May 5, 962, Han nationality, high school education, farmer in a village in a city of a province. He was arrested on July 9 on suspicion of intentionally destroying public and private property 1999. Now detained in xx detention center.
Defender Xu, lawyer of a law firm.
The people's procuratorate of a province and a city accused the defendant Zou of deliberately destroying public and private property with indictment No.2004. X (20 12)xx, and filed a lawsuit in our hospital on April 20, 20 12. After being accepted by our hospital, a collegial panel was formed according to law to conduct a trial. The People's Procuratorate of a province and a city appointed the procuratorate to appear in court to support the public prosecution, and the defendant Zou and his defender Xu attended the lawsuit. The trial is now over.
The People's Procuratorate of a city in a province accused the defendant Zou Mou of breaking into the village committee after drinking at 5 pm on April1April/9991and smashing glass, megaphones, telephones and money detectors. , causing economic losses to the village committee of 20 12 yuan, violating the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC).
Defendant Zou has no objection to the basic criminal facts accused by the public prosecution agency, but thinks: 1. It is a fact to smash the village Committee, but there are not so many things; 2. The village committee should protect the villagers' legitimate rights and interests, but they (referring to village committee cadres) did not speak for me without saying a word, but helped the bailiff seal up and destroy my winery; I don't blame the court for executing the conciliation statement unfairly, but the village committee has the responsibility to speak for me. They didn't say anything. Afterwards, I quarreled with them about it and smashed things in a rage.
Defender of defendant Zou Mou has no objection to the basic criminal facts accused by the public prosecution agency, but thinks: 1. The village Committee's things were smashed when Zou and the village Committee quarreled, and the village Committee also had the responsibility; 2. Zou is not vicious subjectively; Zou has no culture and doesn't know how to protect himself by legal means. Ask the court to give him a lighter punishment.
It was found through trial that:
1April, 1993, the defendant Zou had a dispute with others because of the late payment of the sales contract. After mediation by a county people's court in a city, Zou agreed to pay the money owed to the other party before April 30, and the overdue money was offset by three 3-ton aluminum wine cans sealed up by a county people's court. After the mediation book of the county people's court was delivered, Zou did not perform it. In September of the same year, at the application of the other party, the county people's court decided to enforce the notice after it was invalid. After the executives arrived at the village, Zou went out to hide. The executor then asked the village Committee to assist in the implementation according to law. The village Committee cadres led the executives to Zou's winery. In front of the village Committee cadres, the executives took away three 3-ton aluminum tankers that had been sealed up, and asked the village Committee cadres to tell Zou to go through the corresponding formalities in the county people's court. After Zou came back, on the grounds that the property to be executed far exceeded the debts owed to the other party, he accused the village Committee cadres of not assisting the foreign courts in execution and unreasonably demanded that the village Committee compensate them for their "losses". Since then, Zou has been concerned about the village Committee, protesting against not paying public grain for three consecutive years, and repeatedly threatening to retaliate. 1April 1999 1 1 5 pm, Zou broke into the village Committee after drinking, smashed the window glass 14, smashed the amplifier, telephone, money detector, aluminum pot, iron stove, desks and chairs in the office, and burned the family planning account card, causing economic losses to the village Committee of 2,065,440.
The above facts are confirmed by the following evidence and cross-examined by our hospital:
1, the testimony of witness xxx confirms that:
2. The photos of the destroyed items at the scene confirm that:
3. The appraisal conclusion of the price firm confirms that the value of the damaged goods is RMB 20 12 yuan.
4. The defendant Zou confessed:
……
The court believes that the defendant Zou ignored the national laws and deliberately destroyed property, which constituted the crime of deliberately destroying public and private property. The charges charged by the public prosecution agency were established. Regarding the statement that he didn't smash so many things, the village Committee cadres didn't speak for themselves in the unfair execution, but smashed things in a rage. After investigation, the village Committee assisted the county people's court in implementing the effective mediation agreement, which was in compliance with the law and its legitimate rights and interests were protected by law. The defendant's opinion is inconsistent with the objective facts and violates the law, which will not be adopted by our court. The village committee put forward by his defender is also responsible, and Zou has no subjective and vicious opinions with low education level. After investigation, it is not improper for the village committee to cooperate with the people's court to perform official duties according to law. The defendant Zou ignored the national laws, and although his education level was not high, it did not constitute a reason for a lighter punishment. The defense opinion of the defender is not supported by this court.
Based on the specific circumstances of this case, according to the provisions of Article 275 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the verdict is as follows:
Defendant Zou was convicted of intentionally destroying public and private property and sentenced to three years in prison. (The term of imprisonment starts on xx, xxxx and ends on xx, xxxx. If a person is detained before the judgment, one day of detention will be reduced to one day of imprisonment. )
If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of XXX City through our court or directly within ten days from the second day of receiving the judgment. If a written appeal is filed, one original and two copies of the appeal shall be submitted.
Chief justice xxx
Judge xxx
Trial eye xxx
20 12 April 2 1 day
Staff xxx