Defendant Li, male, 1947, born in Yongjia County, Zhejiang Province, Han nationality, primary school education, business, and living in Jiali Village, huang tian zhen, Yongjia County. He was criminally detained on August 8, 2006 on suspicion of committing a major labor safety accident, and was arrested on August 22 of the same year. Now detained in Yongjia County Detention Center.
Defender Zhuo Yula, lawyer of Zhejiang Pingyu Law Firm.
Defendant XX Hai, male, 1976 was born in Yongjia County, Zhejiang Province on March 6, with a primary school education and business, and lives in Jiali Village, huang tian zhen, Yongjia County. Suspected of committing a major labor safety accident, he was detained on August 8, 2006 at 5438+0, arrested on August 22 of the same year, and released on bail on June 2002 1.
Defender Xu, lawyer of Zhejiang Pingyu Law Firm.
Defendant Xu, male, 1952 was born in Yongjia County, Zhejiang Province in June, Han nationality, illiterate, doing business, and living atNo. 1 Liaoyuan Road, huang tian zhen, Yongjia County. Suspected of committing a major labor safety accident, he was detained in August 2006 10 and arrested on August 22 of the same year. Now detained in Yongjia County Detention Center.
Defender Su Caiquan, lawyer of Zhejiang Nanjiang Law Firm.
Defendant Xu Yi, male, born on 1 October 29th,1975 10, born in Yongjia County, Zhejiang Province, Han nationality, with high school education, is engaged in business, and lives atNo.1huang tian zhen, Yongjia County. He was criminally detained on August 8, 2006 on suspicion of committing a major labor safety accident, and was arrested on August 22 of the same year. In June 2002, 5438+1October, 65438+May was released on bail pending trial.
Defender Dai Xiucheng, lawyer of Zhejiang Nanjiang Law Firm.
Yongjia County People's Procuratorate accused the defendants Li, XX Hai, Xu A and Xu B of committing major labor safety accidents with indictmentNo. 587- 1, and filed a public prosecution with our hospital on June 23, 2002. Our court formed a collegial panel according to law and heard the case in public. Yongjia County People's Procuratorate appointed prosecutors and Zhou appeared in court to support public prosecution. The above-mentioned defendants and their defenders attended the proceedings in court. The trial is now over.
Yongjia County People's Procuratorate accused Yongjia County huang tian zhen People's Government and relevant county departments that in order to solve the problems of environmental pollution caused by Huangtianjia's electroplating workshop, 1992, electroplating households raised funds to build the second electroplating factory in Huangtian County, Yongjia County near Nanxi River in Waiyao Village, huang tian zhen. Defendants Li, XX Hai, Xu A, Xu B and others moved to the workshops of this factory 1993, 1996 17 and 2 1 respectively to hire workers for electroplating production. In the electroplating production process, the above-mentioned defendants and others did not meet the requirements in labor safety facilities, and after being put forward by the relevant departments, they still failed to take measures for the hidden dangers of accidents, resulting in the overall collapse of Workshop 4 to Workshop 22 of No.2 Huangtian Electroplating Factory in Yongjia County at 5438+0 on the evening of August 7, 2006, resulting in 13 workers being killed and 13 people being injured. The public prosecution agency provided witness testimony, audio-visual materials, on-site investigation transcripts, accident investigation reports, defendant confessions and other evidence, which confirmed the above facts. It is considered that the actions of the defendants Li, XX Hai, Xu A and Xu B have constituted the crime of major labor safety accidents, and the circumstances are particularly bad. He appealed to our court to sentence him in accordance with the provisions of Article 135 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC).
Defendants Li and Xu have no objection to the basic criminal facts accused by the public prosecution agency. Defendant XX Hai argued that 17 workshop was run by his father Li, who had been doing business in other places. Defendant Xu Yi argued that 2 1 Workshop was run by his father Xu Jia, who did not participate in the management. Defender Li argued that there was no objection to the charges. However, the administrative organ has a certain responsibility for the occurrence of this case, and the criminal circumstances of the county defendant are not particularly bad. It is suggested that the court sentence the defendant Li to three years in prison. Defender of defendant XX Hai argued that the direct management of defendant XX 17 workshop could not constitute the crime of major labor safety accidents; At the same time, it is also proposed that if the defendant constitutes a crime, given that the civil part has been compensated, it is suggested that the court declare the defendant XX Hai suspended. Defender of defendant Xu argued that defendant Xu had a slight behavior and actively rescued the wounded at the scene of the accident, which made meritorious service. It is suggested that the court give the defendant Xu a lighter punishment. Defender of defendant Xu Yi argued that defendant Xu Yi was not directly responsible for Workshop 2 1 and the circumstances were not particularly bad. And the defendant Xu Yi has made compensation for the civil part and rescued the wounded, which is a meritorious service. It is not appropriate to convict the defendant Xu Yi ... It was found through trial that in order to solve the environmental pollution caused by the electroplating workshop in Huangtian County, the People's Government of huang tian zhen, Yongjia County and the relevant departments of the county, with the approval of Yongjia County Industrial Economic Committee, at the end of 1992, the electroplating households raised funds to build the second electroplating factory in Huangtian County, Yongjia County (without a business license), and Ke Yong. Later defendants Li, XX Hai, Xu A, Xu B, Qiu Libin, Li Hailong, Hoi Hing Lee, Cheng Wu, Yu, Yu, Huang, Ke Yijing, Xiao Changshui, Chen Chenxi, Jin Keqiao and Huang Mei Yong 1993 successively moved to Yongjia County No.2 Electroplating Factory to hire workers for electroplating production. Among them, the defendants Li, XX Hai, Xu A and Xu B were directly and mainly responsible for 17 and 2 1 workshop labor safety respectively. 1994 to 2000, the above-mentioned defendants and others expanded the single-story simple factory building with brick-concrete structure to the river for many times without the approval of the relevant departments. In the second half of 2000, the above-mentioned defendants and other owners found cracks in the wall between the original building and the extension building, accompanied by foundation settlement, and the original building and the extension building were identified as damaged houses and dangerous houses. After discovering the hidden dangers of accidents, the relevant departments ordered the above-mentioned defendants and other owners to stop production and dismantle illegal dangerous houses. The above-mentioned defendants and others ignored the decisions and opinions of relevant departments and failed to take effective remedial measures, which led to the collapse of Workshop 4-22 of No.2 Huangtian Electroplating Factory in Yongjia County at 5438+0 on the evening of August 7, 2006, resulting in heavy property losses, 13 people died, and 13 people died. Among them, 6 people died in the 17 workshop operated by defendants Li and XX Hai, and 2 1 workshop died 1 person operated by defendants Xu A and Xu B. After the incident, defendants Li and XX Hai have compensated the victims for economic losses of RMB200,000, and defendants Xu A and Xu B have compensated the victims for economic losses of RMB70,000.
The evidences to prove the above facts are: 1. The documents of Yongjia County Industrial Economic Committee and the minutes of Yongjia County People's Government Coordination Meeting, which prove that during the period from 199 1 to 1992, it was agreed to establish Yongjia County Huangtian Electroplating Plant No.2, which was a joint-stock cooperative system. 2. The documents issued by Yongjia County People's Government, Safety Committee, Fire Brigade of Public Security Bureau and Real Estate Administration Bureau all prove that from March to May of 20001year, the administrative organ appraised the dangerous house of the second electroplating factory in Huangtian County, Yongjia County, and listed the defendant and other owners as the fact that the accident hidden danger was rectified within a time limit. 3. Audio-visual materials and videos prove the fact that before some workshops of No.2 Huangtian Electroplating Factory in Yongjia County collapsed, the leaders of relevant departments visited the factory several times after discovering the hidden dangers of the accident and ordered the owners to dismantle them themselves. 4. The testimonies of witnesses Li Zhiyong and Liu Wei all prove that from 2000 to March 5438+0, 2006, after the accident hidden danger was discovered in No.2 Huangtian Electroplating Factory in Yongjia County, the relevant departments ordered the owner to dismantle the dangerous house or take remedial measures, but the owner failed to implement it. 5. The testimonies of witnesses Chen Qiugen and Chen Qiugen all prove that the defendant XX Hai participated in the operation and management of 17 workshop. 6. Yongjia County Real Estate Appraisal Firm certified that the real estate value of No.4-No.22 workshop was 632,358 yuan. 7. The Investigation Report of Yongjia County Public Security Bureau on the "200 1.8.7" accident and the on-site investigation record confirmed that the collapsed workshop of No.2 Huangtian Electroplating Factory in Yongjia County was No.4-22, and the death toll was *** 13 (including 17 workshop and 1). 8. The mediation agreement proves that the civil part has been compensated after the accident. 9. The household registration certificate confirmed the identity of the above-mentioned defendant. 10. confessions of the above-mentioned defendants. The above evidence can be mutually confirmed after cross-examination by our hospital, and our hospital will confirm it. We believe that the defendants Li Mou, XX Hai, Xu A and Xu B did not meet the national regulations in the electroplating production process. After being pointed out by the relevant departments, they still did not take measures against the hidden dangers of accidents, causing heavy casualties, and the circumstances were particularly bad. Their actions have constituted the crime of major labor safety accidents. The charges accused by the public prosecution agency are established and supported. Defendants XX Hai, Xu B and their defenders all claimed that the two defendants were not directly responsible for workshops 17 and 2 1. After investigation, the above facts that the defendants XX Hai and Xu B participated in the business management activities in the public security organs confirmed each other and were supported by the testimony of relevant witnesses. They should belong to the persons who are directly responsible and meet the main body of the crime of major labor safety accidents. Therefore, the opinions of the defendant and his defender were rejected. Defenders of the defendants Li, Xu A and Xu B all suggested that the actions of the three defendants were not particularly bad. After investigation, Yongjia Huangtian Electroplating Factory No.2 is an interconnected whole composed of workshops. Due to the negligence of the defendant, the whole factory collapsed, and the property suffered heavy losses. The death toll reached 13, which should be a particularly bad situation. Therefore, this defense opinion of the defender was not adopted. Defendant Xu asked Zhijing's defender to suggest that the two defendants performed meritorious service in rescuing the wounded at the scene of the accident, which was inconsistent with the meritorious service stipulated in Article 68 of China's Criminal Law. It should not be regarded as meritorious service, but lighter circumstances can be considered when sentencing. In view of the fact that the defendants XX Hai and Xu B participated in the operation and management of workshops 17 and 2 1, and were directly responsible personnel, their roles and circumstances were lighter than those of the defendants Li Mou and Xu A. After the incident, the defendants XX Hai and Xu B were compensated for their civil parts and showed remorse, so our court gave them a lighter punishment and applied probation according to law. Defender of the defendant XX Hai suggested that the defendant be sentenced to probation, which was adopted by our hospital. Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 135 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), our court made the following judgments on defendants Li and Xu A, and in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 135, the second paragraph and the third paragraph of Article 72 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), respectively:
1. Defendant Li committed a major labor safety accident and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment (the term shall be counted from the date of execution of the judgment). If the person is detained before the execution of the judgment, one day of detention shall be reduced to one day of fixed-term imprisonment, that is, from August 8, 2000/KLOC-0 to August 7, 2006).
2. The defendant XX Hai committed a major labor safety accident and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and suspended for four years (the probation period of probation is counted from the date of judgment).
3. Defendant Xu committed a major labor safety accident and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment (the sentence is counted from the date of execution of the judgment). In case of detention before the execution of the judgment, one day of detention shall be reduced to one day of fixed-term imprisonment, that is, from August 200 1 year to August 9, 2004).
4. Defendant Xu B committed a major labor safety accident and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and suspended for three years (the probation period of probation is counted from the date of judgment).