Appellant (plaintiff in incidental civil action of first instance), male, Han nationality, born on, June, 65438+2009, lives in. Citizenship number. The victim's son.
Appellee (defendant in civil lawsuit attached to the original trial), male, Han nationality, born on, June, 65438+2009, lives in. Citizenship number. Now detained in the city detention center.
The appellant refuses to accept the criminal incidental civil judgment (20 1)No. 1 made by the Municipal People's Court on the case of intentional injury of the appellee, and now appeals.
Appeal request:
The court of second instance remanded the part of the civil judgment in the first instance judgment for retrial or changed the judgment of the appellee to compensate the appellant for various losses according to law.
Facts and reasons:
In a civil judgment, the court of first instance finds that the facts are unclear and the law is wrong, and should correct it according to law.
In the first instance, the appellant appealed against the listed compensation items: death compensation; Children's education expenses and school living expenses; Meal expenses; The judicial appraisal fee should belong to the category of material loss and the scope of criminal incidental civil action, which should be recognized and the appellee should be awarded compensation according to law. However, the court of first instance wrongly identified it as mental loss and indirect economic loss, which is inconsistent with the facts and violates relevant laws and regulations, especially death compensation, and should be identified as property loss, not mental loss. Because: 1 Articles 17 and 18 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases clearly distinguish the loss of income and property and compensation for mental damage. Logically speaking, compensation for property losses is not spiritual consolation money. 2. From the historical process of death compensation, Articles 29 and 36 of the interpretation of personal compensation contradict Article 9 of the interpretation of mental compensation. According to the principle that the new law is superior to the old law, Article 9 of the interpretation of mental compensation has actually been cancelled by the new interpretation, and mental damage compensation has become an item independent of disability compensation and death compensation. 3. Death compensation is the compensation for the income that the deceased may get if he doesn't die. It is an important economic loss for the deceased and their relatives, and it belongs to property compensation, not spiritual comfort. 4. The compensation of death compensation is related to the life span of the person, not the pain suffered by the relatives of the deceased, while the compensation object of death compensation is the loss of property income of the deceased, and the compensation object of mental damage compensation is the relatives of the deceased, and the amount of compensation is related to the mental blow and damage suffered by the relatives of the deceased.
To sum up, human life is supreme, the dead are gone, and the living will continue to live. Only by severely punishing the appellee and appeasing the appellant can the fairness of the law be reflected. We implore the court of second instance to find out the facts, apply the law correctly and earnestly safeguard the appellant's legitimate rights and interests.
I am here to convey
People's court
Appellant:
Date 20 13