Defense words of minors in second instance

Hello, you can refer to the defense of minors in the second instance as follows. Dear presiding judge and judge: * Our firm has been entrusted by the appellant's father Chen * to appoint us as the appellant's defender. After accepting the appointment, we carefully studied and analyzed all the files, met with Chen Mou, and fully grasped the facts of the case. Based on the principle of "taking facts as the basis and law as the criterion", the following defense opinions are put forward for the reference of the collegial panel of our college: 1. Appellant Chen Mou's circumstances are obviously minor and the harm is not great, which is not enough to constitute a crime according to law; The original judgment on Chen Mou's robbery case was not established according to law. 1. The appellant Chen Mou was forced to participate in forcing others to buy shopping cards; Subjectively, there is no purpose or behavior of illegally occupying other people's property. First, according to Chen Mou's confession of June 5438 +20091October 4, "I don't know Xiao Bald, but I often meet him when I go to Daoyanzhai in the morning. Every time I meet him, he asks me to invite him to breakfast. You are polite to me without asking. " "I was robbed by him before, and then he knew me." "When I met him, he was searching on the body of a little boy. When he saw me, he pointed to the boy I knew (Mei Peixin) and told me to rob him. " And the victim Mei * "Do you know the man who robbed you? Yes, his name is Chen, and he studies in our school, which fully proves that Chen Mou has been bullied by "Little Bald" for a long time, and he is very afraid of "Little Bald". It is completely "little bald head" that forces others to buy shopping cards. Imagine catching someone you know. If it weren't for arrogance, would Chen Mou go? Secondly, according to the statement of the victim Mei * on June 4, 2009, "I took out my shopping card and gave it to him (Chen Mou), and then he asked me what else I wanted, so I asked him to buy me a toy car." On June 4, 2009, he confessed that "the little boy (Mei *) gave me the card to remind me to buy him a toy car and left." It fully proves that when forcing Mei to buy a shopping card, she promised to buy a toy car for the victim. Why did you promise to buy a toy car to compensate? The answer is obvious. Chen Mou has no intention to enforce shopping cards. He has no subjective purpose of illegally possessing other people's property. He has to do this! Thirdly, according to Chen Mou's confession and the facts ascertained in the first instance, the gift card was taken by the "little bald head" and Chen Mou did not share the stolen goods. It fully proves that Chen Mou, the appellant, was forced to participate in extorting other people's property cards because he was afraid of the arrogance of the "little bald head". He has no subjective purpose or objective behavior of illegally possessing other people's property, and he himself is the victim. When determining whether Chen Mou was forced to participate in extorting other people's property out of fear, don't forget that the appellant was a child of only 15 years old, with a small mind and timid. Fourth, after the incident, Chen Mou went to class as usual and was caught in the process of going to school. Why rob the same school to meet someone and go to class? Isn't he worried about being punished after committing a crime? The answer is actually very simple, because Chen Mou thinks that he is forced and has no subjective purpose or behavior of illegally possessing other people's property, so he thinks that his behavior does not constitute a crime and goes to class as usual. According to witness Yan Zhu's testimony and Chen Mou's statement, it is common for students to bully the weak and ask for shopping cards after the school issues them. 2. Appellant Chen Mou did not use violence to coerce the victim, nor did he take other personal coercive measures, so his subjective malignancy was not great. According to the statement of the victim Wang * on June 5438+February 3, 20081day, "Q: Did the person who robbed you hit you? A:No. Did the person who robbed you threaten you with words or actions? A: No, "Queen Wang * also claimed that there was a language threat, which fully proved that it was not enough to draw the conclusion that there was a language threat only by the contradictory confession of the victim. Mei's and Wang's statements confirmed each other, and the appellant did not cause personal injury to the victim in the process of asking for the gift card. It also proves that it was forced. 3. The original judgment showed that there was no evidence to prove that the gift card with a face value of 100 yuan still had 100 yuan in cash; Even if there is 100 yuan in cash, the amount is not large. According to the statements of the three victims, the face value of the compulsory shopping card is 100 yuan, but the face value of 100 yuan does not mean that there is 100 yuan in cash. It is not excluded that the victim bought something with a gift card, and there is no evidence to prove that the gift card with a face value of 100 yuan still has 100 yuan in cash. Therefore, the original judgment found that the gift card "each card has cash 100 yuan" lacked evidence to prove that it was not established according to law. Even if each card has 100 yuan in cash, there is only 300 yuan in total, and the amount of money is not large. 4. The appellant Chen Mou was a student at school. After the crime, the victim was afraid to go to school. At the time of the crime, Chen Mou was only 15 years old, a minor, and a student like the victim in this case. After the incident, there was no negative impact on the victims who were afraid to go to school. To sum up the four facts, according to Article 13 of the Criminal Law, "if the circumstances are obviously minor and the harm is not great, it is not considered a crime." Provisions, as well as Article 7 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Juvenile Criminal Cases, "It is not considered a crime for a person who has reached the age of 14 and under 16 to forcibly demand life, school supplies or money carried by other minors by means of slight violence or threats, and the amount is not large, and the victim is not slightly injured or afraid to go to school to study and live normally." The provisions of the appellant Chen Mou should be acquitted according to law and released immediately. Two, the appellant Chen Mou does not constitute a crime according to law, even if it is barely recognized as a crime, it should be suspended according to law. 1, which has been discussed in detail before, the circumstances of the crime are obviously minor; 2, repentance is very good, it is the first offense; 3. New evidence shows that Guiyang School is willing to help and educate the appellant Chen Mou. His parents are willing to compensate the victims for their financial losses. Summing up three facts, according to Article 72 of the Criminal Law, "A criminal sentenced to criminal detention or fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years may be suspended if he does not endanger the society again according to the criminal's criminal circumstances and repentance." Provisions, as well as "the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Juvenile Criminal Cases" Article 16 "Juvenile criminals who meet the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 72 of the Criminal Law may be suspended. If one of the following circumstances exists at the same time and probation is no longer harmful to society, it shall be declared probation: (1) first offense; (2) actively returning stolen goods or compensating the victims for economic losses; (3) Having the conditions of guardianship and assistance in education. " According to the regulations of probation in Chen Mou. Three, Chen Mou does not constitute a crime according to law, even if it does, the original judgment also violates the principle of "crime and punishment should be adapted" and "education should be given priority, supplemented by punishment". Minors are special subjects in the constitution of crimes, and their criminal reasons are usually directly related to their immature physical and mental development. They are not subjective and vicious, and they are highly plastic. Because of this, Article 54 of the Law on the Protection of Minors stipulates that "minors who violate the law and commit crimes shall follow the policy of education, probation and salvation, and adhere to the principle of giving priority to education and supplementing punishment." And fully consider the principle of "whether it is conducive to the education and correction of juvenile offenders". Therefore, even if Chen Mou constituted a crime, it would be inappropriate to sentence Chen Mou to two years' imprisonment. First, judicial practice has proved that if minors are punished for a minor crime and thrown into prison, they will not only lose the opportunity of study and employment, but also be easily infected by criminal bad habits, learn some new criminal tricks, and form a bad mentality that is opposite to society, which is not conducive to reform; Second, they have to bear social discrimination after they are released from prison, which has a great negative impact on their future study, employment and normal life. Some people will even lose the confidence to turn over a new leaf, break the jar and fall, re-enter the criminal road, and increase social instability. Therefore, for those juvenile defendants who have committed crimes, but their thoughts are not mature, their bad habits are not deep, their social harm is not great, and they occasionally break the law and are sincerely willing to repent, they should be given more probation and a chance to turn over a new leaf, so that they can accept supervision and reform in the social environment. This will help to avoid the disadvantages of cross-infection after imprisonment, and always give a warning to juvenile criminals that probation may really be implemented. In the process of not being detained and being examined by a specific organ, they will show themselves more consciously, change their evil deeds and strive for a better future. Can also personally experience the tolerance of law and society, eliminate the conflict and rebellious psychology. To sum up, the appellant Chen Mou's plot is obviously minor and does not constitute a crime according to law; Even if it is barely recognized as a crime, probation is applied according to law; The original judgment violated the principle of "crime and punishment should be adapted" and the principle of "education first, punishment second" for juvenile offenders. Therefore, I implore the court of second instance to seriously consider this defense opinion, correct the wrong judgment of first instance and acquit the appellant Chen Mou. Fairly and justly protect citizens' legitimate rights and safeguard legal dignity. Thank you * Lawyer Liu of law firm in July 2009 *