Defending Innocent Armed Robbery Dear presiding judge and judge, xx Law Firm accepted the entrustment of the defendant xxx in this case and appointed me as its first-instance defender. After accepting the entrustment of the defendant xxx, the defender met with the defendant, read all the materials of this case in detail, and conducted in-depth discussion and research on the application of the law in this case. According to the facts of this case, the defender made the following defense opinions: 1. The People's Procuratorate of xxx accused the defendant xxx of committing robbery (armed robbery), and found that the facts were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and the law was wrong, so the defendant xxx did not constitute a crime. Because this case is an accomplice of * * *, when analyzing whether the defendant's possession of guns constitutes a crime, we must first determine whether the whole criminal fact accused by the public prosecution agency exists, secondly determine whether the defendant himself has committed a crime and its role in the accomplice of * * *, and thirdly determine whether the appellant has committed a crime intentionally and its intentional content. Let's analyze them one by one. 1. Defenders believe that the facts and actions of the gun procuratorate accusing the defendant of armed robbery do not exist. The existing evidence in this case can't prove that the defendant xxx robbed the victim's money, only the victim's statement and no other evidence to prove it, so it can't be determined. Moreover, the victim's statement is intended to blackmail and frame the defendant, because on the second day of the crime, the victim asked the families of the two defendants for 10 thousand yuan, and threatened to call the fight robbery if he didn't give the 10 thousand yuan. This fact can be confirmed by the witness testimony of witness xxx. Obviously, the victim deliberately fabricated the facts with the intention of framing the defendant. Moreover, according to witness xxx, xxx itself has black forces in xxx county, and his testimony is even less credible. And the amount of compensation required in this case. In addition, from the victim's statement (and the second page of the interrogation record of the criminal police squadron on X, X, X, X; The victim xxx stated this; Ask? ; What did xxx say when he took money from your pocket? Answer; At that time, my head was knocked dizzy and I couldn't remember what to say. Since I don't even know what xxx said, how can I know the money that xxx took out of his pocket? This statement is obviously supported by the former spear. This also shows the falsehood of the victim's statement on the other hand. Therefore, it is obviously impossible to identify the defendant's behavior as robbery only by the statement supported by the victim. The basic objective facts of this case are as follows: It is a compensation dispute caused by a traffic accident. When the two defendants were driving normally on the road at 1 1 midnight, they were suddenly rear-ended by the victim's motorcycle, causing the defendant's motorcycle to be damaged and injured. It is illegal for the two defendants to ask the victim to compensate for property losses and personal injuries by improper means, but this should belong to the regulations on administrative penalties for public security. The fact that the defendant's motorcycle was damaged due to the collision and the two defendants were damaged is objective, which can be confirmed by the statements of the two defendants, the certificate of the owner, the investigation and photos taken by the public security organs. This is the key to this case, but the indictment avoids talking about this fact, which is incomprehensible. Therefore, the behavior of the two defendants is just a kind of coercion, and only the victim can hand over the compensation with a tough attitude. What's more, the two defendants were also very helpless at the time, and the victim did not apologize for hitting his motorcycle. At first, they began to swear, and their attitude was extremely bad, which led to the first fight, and then the two defendants filed for compensation. Originally, the two defendants didn't ask for money at all, let alone rob them, just trying to protect their legitimate rights and interests. If it is robbery, it must be the most valuable thing on the victim of robbery. First of all, I think it is a motorcycle. Secondly, if it is robbery, it will take all the money of the victim. According to the victim, he still has 10 thousand yuan on him. Why didn't he rob him? As long as a few hundred dollars, the two defendants left. To sum up, it is uncertain whether there is robbery in this case. Therefore, the defendant's behavior does not constitute robbery. Second, in this case, the two defendants subjectively did not intend to rob. When determining the nature of the defendant's behavior, we can't ignore an important fact, that is, there is a debt relationship between the defendant and the victim in this case-the debt of personal injury compensation and property loss compensation. Therefore, subjectively speaking, the defendant did not intend to rob. His subjective purpose is only to demand their legal compensation. Since your victim rear-ended the defendant's motorcycle and caused personal injuries to the two defendants, you should pay compensation, and the defendant has the right to claim his legal creditor's rights. And there was no direct robbery, it was given by the victim. Because of the existence of this premise, the defendant's robbery intention is fundamentally ruled out. Because the two defendants did not intend to rob, the defendant's behavior did not constitute robbery. 3. The indictment accused the two defendants of committing robbery, and the applicable law was improper. X year x month x day law (xxx)xxx, the Supreme People's Court's "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Robbery and Snatching Criminal Cases" clearly stipulates in Item 5 of Article 9; Where an actor uses violence or threatens violence to obtain debts, he is generally not convicted and punished for robbery, and if the crime constitutes intentional injury, he shall be punished in accordance with Article 234 of the Criminal Law. Accordingly, the indictment accused the two defendants of committing robbery, and the applicable law was improper. To sum up, the existing evidence in this case can not only prove that the defendant had the intention and behavior of robbery, but also prove that the two defendants could not have the intention of robbery, and the defendant's behavior was completely inconsistent with the subjective and objective elements of robbery. According to the requirements of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime and the principle of presumption of innocence and the provisions of the second and third paragraphs of Article 162 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC); If the defendant is found innocent according to law, a verdict of innocence shall be made; If the defendant cannot be found guilty due to insufficient evidence, he shall be acquitted. Because of insufficient evidence, the accused crime cannot be established. However, the facts of this case are unclear and the evidence is insufficient, so the defendant cannot be found guilty. Therefore, it should be determined that the defendant's behavior does not constitute a crime. The above defense opinions are requested to be considered by the collegial panel in the collegial judgment. Defender: xxxxxx year x month x day
Legal objectivity:
Criminal law of the people's Republic of China
Article 263
Whoever robs public or private property by violence, coercion or other means shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years and shall also be fined;
Under any of the following circumstances, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years, life imprisonment or death, and shall also be fined or confiscated:
Burglary;
(2) Robbery on public transport;
(3) robbing banks or other financial institutions;
(4) Robbery for many times or the amount of robbery is huge;
(5) Robbery causes serious injury or death;
(six) posing as military and police personnel to rob;
(7) Armed robbery;
(eight) robbing military supplies or emergency rescue, disaster relief and relief supplies.