Excerpt:
4. The accusation against Sun Xianfeng in the indictment has no factual basis.
It is possible to take facts as the basis and law as the criterion. However, the indictment is not supported by any evidence except labeling and beating sticks. It can be said that such an absurd indictment is also a rare wonder in the legal history of China. In the face of the lawyer's query of "please show me the evidence", the prosecutor showed a rare generosity; Facing the lawyer's sentence, "What volume, page and line is your evidence?" The prosecutor showed amazing tolerance. But this lawyer doesn't want to see the prosecutor's generosity and tolerance. What he wants to see is the prosecutor's reasoned rebuttal. Disappointingly, the public prosecutor could not produce any evidence to prove that the defendant in this case was guilty except catching shadows. Is the prosecutor too busy to read the case file carefully? Is the case too complicated and unprepared? However, it only took our lawyer 46 hours [1] from contacting all the case files to hearing, so we can clearly grasp the context of the whole case, which shows that the case is not complicated. Is it not as good as our lawyer's 46 hours to check all the files in three months? Of course not! The reason is: it's not that the public prosecutor won't give evidence, that the public prosecutor doesn't dare to give evidence, or that the public prosecutor saves face for the defender, but that the public prosecutor didn't find any evidence of the defendant's "intentional crime" in this case. Therefore, the means of catching shadows [2], making things out of nothing [3] and fabricating lies [4] have to be used. The public prosecutor's practice goes far beyond the scope of irresponsibility and sloppy work, far beyond the bottom line of professional ethics and far beyond the bottom line of this lawyer's tolerance. In order to safeguard the dignity of the socialist legal system, no conscientious legal worker will give in.
To sum up, the nature of this case and related cases is wrong, individual prosecution violates the provisions of the Supreme Court, the status and role of distinguishing criminal suspects and participants are inaccurate, and the way of collecting and providing evidence is illegal. In particular, although Sun Xianfeng objectively helped Huang Shundong and others to contact the freight forwarding company, according to the existing evidence, Sun Xianfeng did not know their criminal intentions in advance, nor did he have the intention of illegal possession. He only doubted them after helping to contact the freight forwarding company. However, there is no relevant evidence to support the degree of suspicion and whether we can draw the conclusion that the crime is intentional from the suspicion. Therefore, Sun Xianfeng can't be regarded as the * * * offender of Huang Shundong and Ding Qian. It should also be pointed out that there are still two insiders (Ding Qian and Wang Min) who have not yet arrived at the case, which brings unpredictable variables to the determination of the case. In criminal cases, before a person is convicted, any doubt of conviction must be ruled out. It is the basic principle of modern criminal law to never suspect a crime. There is no doubt that when there is new evidence, it can still be remedied and the crime can still be cracked down. Undoubtedly, this can prevent innocent people from suffering unnecessarily. Undoubtedly, this can make judicial personnel avoid investigating the administrative responsibility or legal responsibility of misjudged cases. In view of this, according to the existing evidence, we should make a judgment that the plaintiff in this case does not constitute a crime, or even make an innocent judgment that the accused crime cannot be established because of insufficient evidence according to the principle of no doubt.