The presiding judge and judge:
According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), Henan Qunda Law Firm accepted the entrustment of the defendant He Wanling's family, and with the consent of the defendant He Wanling himself, appointed lawyer Mi as the defendant He Wanling's defender. The defender consulted the case file and met with the defendant before the trial. The case has been investigated by the court and the facts of the case are clear. According to the facts and laws of this case, I hereby make the following defense opinions:
The defender has no objection to the accusation that the defendant He Wanling's behavior in the indictment constitutes a crime of intentional injury and should be investigated for criminal responsibility. However, they believe that the defendant He Wanling has a statutory and discretionary light punishment, and request the collegial panel to consider the defendant He Wanling's behavior when sentencing. The specific defense reasons are as follows:
1. In this case, the victim was at great fault, and the defendant He Wanling was given a lighter punishment.
The indictment alleges that "on February 13, 2006, the defendant He Wanling quarreled with the villager Zhang Huiren because of trivial matters, which caused tearing". The real reason for the fight at that time was that the victim was set on fire because of his own straw stack, and then he swore at the roadside, which was very ugly. Most importantly, its semantic meaning means that it is suspected that the defendant He Wanling in this case ignited his straw pile. According to the victim's swearing words, other villagers at the scene will think of cursing the defendant at will. The defendant, He Wanling, had no choice but to ask the victim not to swear, and he would curse anyone who ordered his haystack. The victim used force with the defendant unreasonably, and the two sides tore after the quarrel. It can be seen that the victim has an unshirkable responsibility for the occurrence of injury cases. In view of the victim's wrong behavior, I urge the court to give the defendant He Wanling a lighter punishment.
Second, after the incident, the defendant He Wanling showed an obvious attitude of repentance, and this crime was a first-time offender and an occasional offender.
The cause of the case is that the victim was abused. Defendant He Wanling was impulsive and didn't know much about the law. He didn't think of the seriousness of the matter at all and accidentally did such a thing. Afterwards, the defendant felt very regretful and his attitude of repentance was obvious. Therefore, the defendant He Wanling is a first-time offender and an occasional offender. It is suggested that the court give the defendant a lighter punishment.
Three. In this case, the defendant He Wanling and the victim have reached a mediation agreement and obtained the victim's understanding.
After the incident, the family of the defendant He Wanling actively negotiated compensation with the injured party. Because the two families were originally villagers, the defendant's attitude quickly gained the understanding of the victim and signed a compensation agreement with the defendant. The victim is also unwilling to investigate the criminal responsibility and civil responsibility of the defendant. Since the defendant reached a mediation agreement with the victim and obtained the victim's understanding, I urge the court to consider the victim when sentencing.
To sum up, the defendant He Wanling intentionally hurt others, and the facts are clear, but the defendant He Wanling is a first-time offender and an occasional offender, and the victim has a major fault. Therefore, the defender suggested that the court consider giving the defendant He Wanling a lighter punishment.
The above opinions are for the reference of the collegial panel, and hope to adopt them!