Is the defendant Zhao Jun an attempted robbery or an accomplished robbery?

During the trial of this case, in view of the fact that the two defendants robbed the truck, the public prosecution agency only produced the confessions of the two defendants and did not produce other evidence. The two defendants, their defenders and legal representatives did not raise any objection to the main criminal facts accused by the public prosecution agency, and thought that the robbery of the truck driver by the two defendants constituted robbery. The court of first instance held that the defendants Zhao Jun and Song Ying used threats to rob others of their property for the purpose of illegal possession, and their actions constituted robbery. The public prosecutor accused the defendant of robbery. Although the defendant has started robbery, the robbery failed due to reasons other than his will, which is an attempted crime and can be mitigated according to the completed crime. In this case, the second defendant is an accomplice. The fact that the public prosecution agency accused the two defendants of robbing a large truck is not confirmed because it is only confirmed by the defendant's confession and the accomplice's confession, and there is no other relevant evidence. If the evidence is not true and sufficient, it will not be recognized. Defendant Song Ying was under the age of 18 when he committed the crime, and the circumstances of the crime were minor, so his punishment should be mitigated according to law. The court finally found the two defendants guilty of robbery, sentenced the defendant Zhao Jun to two years' imprisonment and fined 3,000 yuan. The defendant Song Ying was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended for one year and fined 2000 yuan. During the trial of this case, there are two different opinions on whether the fact that the public prosecution accused the two defendants of robbing the big truck was only confirmed by the defendant's confession and the accomplice's confession, and there was no other relevant evidence to prove it. The first opinion is that the fact that the public prosecution agency accused the two defendants of robbing the big truck can be recognized. During the trial of this case, the two defendants had no objection to the criminal facts of robbing the truck accused by the public prosecution agency, and their defenders and legal representatives also believed that the robbery of the truck driver by the two defendants constituted robbery. At the same time, compared with the defendant, the confession of the accomplice who robbed the big truck is no longer the confession of the defendant, but the testimony of a witness, which can be regarded as the testimony of a witness to testify against the facts of the crime. In this case, although there is no other relevant evidence, the confession of the defendant and the confession of the accomplice can prove each other, and the criminal facts of robbing the big truck can also be determined. The second opinion is that the fact that the public prosecution accused the two defendants of robbing the big truck was not confirmed by other relevant evidence materials, and the evidence was insufficient to be determined. Although the two defendants had no objection to the fact that the public prosecution agency accused the driver of robbing the big truck, they only confirmed that the criminal facts were the confession of the defendant himself and the confession of the accomplice. However, the confession of an accomplice cannot be used as the witness testimony of the case, because there is the possibility of naming a confession or colluding with a confession, and the confession of one's own or other accomplices can only be used as the confession of the defendant. In this case, it is equivalent to only the confession of the defendant and no other evidence to prove it. Therefore, it should be considered that the fact that the public prosecution accused the two defendants of robbing a large truck is inadmissible. The author agrees with the second opinion. Comment on Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC): All cases should focus on evidence, investigation and study, and confessions should not be trusted. If only the defendant confessed and there was no other evidence, the defendant could not be found guilty and punished. And put forward the proof standard that the evidence should be "really sufficient", which reflects the cautious attitude of the law towards confession. The above-mentioned principles of evidence application and standards of proof require us to strictly examine the confession and make a reasonable judgment on its evidence effectiveness. From the legislative analysis, the original intention of this legislation is to prevent law enforcement officers from blindly pursuing the defendant's confession without looking for other evidence, leading to the proliferation of extorting confessions by torture and causing unjust, false and wrong cases. The consequence of this provision is to limit the probative force of oral evidence. As we know, confession has dual characteristics: on the one hand, criminal suspects and defendants are most aware of their actions, which may be the most authentic, comprehensive and concrete evidence of the case; On the other hand, because the handling of cases is directly related to the guilt of criminal suspects and defendants, they will make false confessions and excuses or make false reports and exposures for various motives. On the one hand, it is evidence, and there is evidence to prove the facts of the case; On the other hand, it has the nature of defense and is the exercise of litigation rights. Therefore, the true elements and false elements of confession coexist, and sometimes they may all be false elements. This feature of the confession itself also requires us to verify it with other evidence in the case from the aspects of formation process, content, motivation and related procedures. First, the confession of the co-defendant does not belong to witness testimony in nature. The so-called defendant's confession refers to the confession made by the defendant to the judicial organ when he admits to committing a certain crime. The so-called witness testimony refers to the statement made by a third party independent of the criminal act to the judicial organ about the case it directly or indirectly feels. The defendant's confession and witness's testimony are two different kinds of evidence stipulated in Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Law and should not be confused. The fundamental difference between the two is that the defendant is a party to the case, and the outcome of the case has a direct interest with him, so his statement is often false; Witnesses are "outsiders" of the case, generally have no direct interest in the outcome of the case, and can generally state the case objectively and fairly. * * * The confession made by the offender and the defendant about the alleged crime is the confession of the defendant, not the testimony of the witness. This is because, judging from his participation in the lawsuit, he participated as a defendant, not a third person other than the party; Judging from the outcome of the lawsuit, he has a direct interest in the outcome of the lawsuit and may be subject to criminal punishment for his statement. Therefore, because the confession made by the criminal and the defendant can only be the confession of the defendant, not the testimony of witnesses. Second, the confessions of co-defendants cannot be evidence of each other. When dealing with whether two or more people can be convicted according to the confession of the defendant, another key problem to be solved is how to understand the provision of Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Law that "only according to the confession of the defendant". "Only the confession of the defendant cannot be convicted" means that only the confession of one defendant cannot be convicted, or the confession of more than two defendants cannot be convicted. There is no explicit provision in the current law. The author believes that the confessions of co-defendants stating the same criminal facts cannot be used as witnesses to testify against each other. First of all, in the case of the same crime, without other evidence, the authenticity and reliability of the defendant's confession cannot be determined. Although the consistency of mutual testimony of criminals makes the confession a step forward in the direction of authenticity and reliability, its authenticity and reliability are still not very certain only through mutual testimony. The consistency of mutual evidence does not represent the authenticity of the confession. Confirming a confession with a confession is tantamount to proving another uncertain factor with one uncertain factor, and its conclusion will still be uncertain. Secondly, the defendant had * * * intention subjectively and * * * colleagues objectively. Their statement of the same criminal fact is usually "you have me, I have you, and you have him", which form an inseparable whole with each other. The defendants in the same case are the parties to the same criminal case, and the results of handling their cases are different. In this case, the confession of the defendant and the confession of the co-defendant can only be recognized as the confession of the defendant, that is, the defendant himself admitted the facts of the crime. The defendant's recognition of the facts does not exempt the prosecutor from the burden of proof. In this case, in addition to the defendant's confession, there should be other relevant evidence, such as the victim's statement, on-site physical evidence, the testimony of other witnesses, etc. Only by confirming each other can we identify the facts of the crime and convict the defendant. In the absence of other evidence, only the defendant confessed, and according to the principle of "no doubt", the facts of the crime cannot be determined. Therefore, in this case, the public prosecution agency accused the two defendants of robbing the big truck, and only the defendant's confession and the co-defendant's confession were not supported by other evidence, so the criminal facts could not be determined.