Because the Sun Weiming case is a second instance, it means that the judgment of the first instance has not taken effect. In this case, the judgment of first instance is generally not uploaded to the court website.
Next, I'll post the second-instance judgment of Sun Weiming's case. You can have a look:
The full text is as follows:
On the morning of September 8th, Sichuan Higher People's Court publicly pronounced the case of Sun Weiming's crime of endangering public security by dangerous means, and made a criminal judgment (2009) No.690:1. Maintain the criminal judgment of Chengdu Intermediate People's Court (2009)No. 158 on the defendant Sun Weiming; 2. Revoke the sentencing part of defendant Sun Weiming in criminal judgmentNo. 158 of Chengdu Intermediate People's Court (2009); Three. Appellant (defendant in the first instance) Sun Weiming was convicted of endangering public security by dangerous means, sentenced to life imprisonment and deprived of political rights for life.
The Intermediate People's Court of Chengdu, Sichuan Province tried the case that the People's Procuratorate of Chengdu, Sichuan Province accused the defendant Sun Weiming of endangering public security by dangerous means, and made a criminal judgment on July 22, 2009 ([2009] ChengshengchuziNo. 102). 158), the defendant Sun Weiming was found guilty of endangering public security by dangerous means, sentenced to death and deprived of political rights for life. Sun Weiming, the defendant in the original trial, refused to accept the appeal. After accepting the case on August 4, 2009, the Sichuan Higher People's Court formed a collegial panel according to law and heard the case in public on September 4, 2009. Sichuan Provincial People's Procuratorate appointed agents Chen and Wang Minmei to perform their duties in court. Appellant (defendant in the original trial) Sun Weiming and his defenders Shi Jie and Chen Hong participated in the lawsuit.
The Sichuan Higher People's Court found through trial that on May 28th, 2008, the appellant (defendant in the original trial) Sun Weiming bought a Buick with the license plate number of Sichuan A43K66. Without obtaining a legal driver's license, Sun Weiming has been in driving without a license for a long time and has a traffic violation record. At noon on June 5438+February 65438+April 2008, Sun Weiming and his parents celebrated their relatives' birthdays in Sifangge Restaurant, Mannianba, chenghua district, Chengdu, during which they drank a lot of wine. /kloc-At about 0: 00, Sun Weiming drove his parents to Chengdu North Station by Sichuan A43K66, and then drove back to Dongcheng East Road in the direction of Longquanyi District in Chengdu. /kloc-at about 0: 00, when going to the "Blue Valley" intersection of Jackie Chan Road, Sun Weiming collided with the A9T332 BYD car in Sichuan from the rear. After speeding forward, he illegally crossed the yellow double solid line in the center of the road at the "Zhuojincheng" section of the road, and collided and scraped with Sichuan AVD24 1 Ford Mondeo sedan and Sichuan AMC337 Chery QQ sedan, causing the deaths of Yin, Jin Yamin and Zhang Chengxiu in Sichuan AUZ872 Changan Benben sedan, and another passenger was seriously injured. After receiving the report from the masses, the traffic police rushed to the scene to capture Sun Weiming. It was identified that the speed of the vehicle driven by Sun Weiming before the collision was134-138 km/h; The alcohol content in Sun Weiming's blood at the time of the crime was 135.8/ 100 ml.
It was also found that after the crime, the appellant (defendant in the original trial) Sun Weiming entrusted his father to sell his property to raise funds, and his father also made every effort to raise funds, and made every effort to compensate the victims for their economic losses, and obtained the understanding of the victims and their relatives.
The Sichuan Higher People's Court held that the focus of this case was the reasons for appeal put forward by the appellant Sun Weiming, the defense opinions expressed by the defender and the inspection opinions put forward by the prosecutor in court.
(1) There are major omissions in the original judgment put forward by the defender. After examination, the video materials and related analysis presented by the defender could not prove that the vehicle driven by Sun Weiming was scratched with the white mini-car before the incident, and there was no report from the owner of the white car and related trace inspection. Therefore, the basis for confirming the plot is insufficient and will not be recognized. The direct causes of car accidents in Sun Weiming, such as unlicensed, drunk, dangerous driving at high speed, and the loss of control of vehicles when they forcibly pass without traffic conditions, have no causal relationship with whether the vehicles they are driving scrape with white cars. The evidence presented by the defender shall not be adopted, and the corresponding defense opinions shall not be adopted.
(2) Certificates and testimonies of Sun Weiming's work unit, colleagues, friends and donees presented by the defender. After examination, this group of evidence proves Sun Weiming's life and work before committing the crime, but it has nothing to do with the facts of the case and the conviction and sentencing, and cannot be used as conviction evidence in this case.
(III) The original judgment put forward by the defender found that there were contradictions and flaws in the evidence of the rear-end collision between the vehicle driven by Sun Weiming and BYD. After examination, the testimony of witness Liu Xiaohong (BYD driver) does differ in details, but the basic fact that he was rear-ended cannot be denied. Moreover, the evidence of this fact is confirmed by on-site investigation transcripts, related trace tests, criminal science and technology appraisal conclusions and other evidence. Sun Weiming's Buick license plate was also found in the hit part of BYD's car, which is enough to confirm.
(4) Convicting Sun Weiming's behavior. The prosecution claimed that it constituted a crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means, and the defense claimed that it constituted a crime of causing traffic accidents. After examination, the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means and the crime of causing traffic accidents belong to the crime of endangering public safety, and the difference between them lies in the different subjective mentality of the actors on the consequences of endangering public safety. The former is a deliberate crime, and the perpetrator has a positive pursuit or laissez-faire attitude towards the harmful consequences; The latter is a negligent crime, and the actor should foresee that his behavior may cause harmful consequences, but because of his negligence, he did not foresee it, or had foreseen it and thought it could be avoided, causing harmful consequences. Judging from the facts and evidence in this case, the appellant Sun Weiming has been in driving without a license for a long time without formal driving training after purchasing the car, and has repeatedly violated the regulations. As we all know, as a modern means of transportation, cars not only benefit the society, but also cause harm to the society because of their high-speed driving characteristics. Therefore, the state has always had strict management regulations for vehicles on the road. As a person with a certain educational level and criminal responsibility for safety, Sun Weiming, knowing the national regulations, still ignores the safety of the public and major property, flouts laws and regulations, and drives illegally on public roads with dense vehicles and crowded people for a long time, threatening public safety. Especially after this drunk driving rear-end traffic accident, Sun Weiming ignored the consequences and let the serious consequences happen. He was driving on a crowded road at twice the speed limit, so that he illegally crossed the yellow double solid line of the road and collided with many vehicles, resulting in 4 deaths 1 injury and tens of thousands of public and private property losses. Facts show that Sun Weiming can fully foresee the consequences that its actions may cause serious harm to public safety. Although he did not actively pursue such consequences, he completely let them happen without any measures to avoid them. His behavior fully conforms to the constitution of the crime of endangering public security by dangerous methods in the criminal law, and he should be convicted of endangering public security by dangerous methods. Defender's view that Sun Weiming is subjectively overconfident and has criminal negligence cannot be established.
(5) About the sentencing of Sun Weiming. The appellant Sun Weiming was driving a motor vehicle without a license, drunk and speeding, resulting in four deaths and one serious injury, resulting in a direct economic loss of more than 50,000 yuan. The crime is bad and the consequences are serious, so it should be severely punished according to law. However, Sun Weiming is an indirect intentional crime, and he does not want or actively pursue the occurrence of harmful results. It is different from the direct crime of driving into vehicles and pedestrians, causing heavy casualties. Subjective malignancy is not deep, and personal danger is not great. He was seriously drunk when he committed the crime, and his ability to understand and control his behavior was weakened. After returning to the case, he sincerely repented and issued a letter of understanding through his relatives, which can be given a lighter punishment according to law. Based on the above factors, Sun Weiming is not a criminal whose crime is serious enough to be executed.
To sum up, the Sichuan Higher People's Court held that the appellant (defendant in the original trial) Sun Weiming should be convicted and punished for endangering public security by dangerous means. Sun Weiming's defense that there is no intentional crime and his defender's defense opinion that Sun Weiming's behavior should constitute a traffic accident crime are inconsistent with the ascertained facts and relevant laws and regulations, and will not be adopted. Defender's defense opinion that there are major facts omitted in the original judgment is not accepted because of insufficient evidence and the circumstances described have nothing to do with the facts and nature of the case. Sun Weiming and his defenders' opinions on sincere repentance and excessive sentencing in the original trial were established and adopted. The original judgment found the facts and convicted correctly, and the trial procedure was legal, but the sentencing was improper. The above judgment was made in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 189 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the first paragraph of Article 115 and the first paragraph of Article 57 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC).
I hope my answer can help you!