The court held that the defendant Gong Moumou ignored national laws and violated relevant regulations. After organizing others to defraud exit documents in the name of tourism for many times, they entered Nepal to work, and their behavior has constituted the crime of organizing others to steal across the country (border). After Gong Moumou was brought to justice, he was able to truthfully confess his criminal facts, and he had a frank plot and could be given a lighter punishment according to law. According to the facts of the crime, the circumstances of the crime and the degree of harm to society, the defendant Gong was sentenced to seven years and three months' imprisonment for organizing others to steal across the country (border), and was fined 10,000 yuan and turned over to the state treasury.
Gong Moumou proposed that, first, it does not constitute the crime of organizing others to steal across the country (border). First of all, he didn't know that he needed a work visa to work abroad with a legal passport, and he had no intention of committing a crime; Secondly, the real organizers are Lin, Aaron and others. Aaron decides whether migrant workers are needed, and Aaron is responsible for air tickets, transportation and accommodation. He just told others how to go to Nepal as a middleman, and objectively did not organize others to steal across the country (border); Thirdly, apart from the confession, there is no other evidence to prove the existence of KC casino in this case, and there is insufficient evidence to organize others to work abroad; Finally, this case lacks the testimony of Xiao and Luo, and Xie's testimony can only prove that her purpose of leaving the country is to travel. Mou Peng's testimony 1 confirmed that she went to work in a Nepali bar. The original judgment found that the facts of organizing the above-mentioned personnel to cross the country (border) were unclear and the evidence was insufficient. Second, even if it constitutes a crime, it organized Liu and others to go to Nepal for the first time, which only played an auxiliary role and should be recognized as an accomplice; Except for Wu Mou 2, people who went to Nepal for the second and third time were introduced by friends. Just tell them how to get there, without trying to woo, seduce or introduce others to cross the country (border) under the command of others. Therefore, the second and third acts do not constitute a crime.
The above facts include the case registration form, description of the case, basic information of criminal judgment and its permanent residents, entry and exit regulations provided by the Nepalese Embassy in Beijing, screenshots and chat records of WeChat, information and descriptions of high-speed rail passengers, testimonies of witnesses Liu, Huang, 1, Jane, Xie, Peng 2, 2, Zeng and the defendants in the original trial.
The opinion put forward by Gong Moumou and his defenders is that it does not constitute a crime, and even if it does, its criminal facts are limited to the fact that it left the country for the first time as determined in the original judgment. After investigation, firstly, criminal intent in criminal law refers to the psychological state in which the actor knows that his behavior will have some consequences, but hopes or lets the consequences happen. The understanding of illegality does not belong to the content of criminal intent. Gong Moumou knows that introducing the relevant work benefits and visa information of Nepal's "KC" casino to others will lead to the consequences of others working in Nepal in the name of tourist visas, but he actively pursues this consequence. I wonder if I need to apply for a work visa to work abroad? This cannot be a fact that prevents him from determining that he has criminal intent. Second, 1. Before Jane and others left the country, Gong provided job information such as job opportunities and welfare benefits, and set up a WeChat group. On the way abroad, Jane and others helped to buy plane tickets, book hotels and tell them how to apply for visas. 2. The testimony of Xiong Mou, Zhou Mou and Zeng Mou can be confirmed. Although Zhou Mou, Cheng Mou, Zeng Mou and others didn't get the relevant information about working in KC casino from Gong Moumou at first, all the above-mentioned people got in touch with Gong Moumou after being introduced by others, and Gong Moumou specifically implemented the actions of helping to buy plane (car) tickets and booking hotels. There is no essential difference between Gong Moumou's behavior against the above-mentioned personnel and the behavior of introducing Jane and others to work abroad. Third, the testimonies of Jane, Liu, Huang and others all confirmed that they went to KC Casino for service work under Gong's introduction. The relevant witnesses completely agreed on how to leave the country, the location of the casino, jobs, treatment and other details, which can confirm the actual existence of KC Casino. Fourthly, although there is no testimony of Xiao Mou in this case, combined with the testimony of Zeng Mou and Xie Mou and Gong Moumou's confession, it can be confirmed that Gong Moumou organized 4, Xiao Mou, Luo Mou, Xie Mou and Mou Peng 1 to work in Nepal. To sum up, according to the ascertained facts, it can be concluded that Gong Moumou organized others to work in KC Casino in Nepal in the name of tourist visa, and his behavior has constituted the crime of organizing others to cross the country (border) according to law. The appellant Gong Moumou and his defender's opinion that Gong Moumou does not constitute a crime, even if it does, its criminal facts are limited to the fact that he left the country for the first time as determined in the original judgment, which is inconsistent with the facts and will not be adopted by our court.
Gong Moumou ignored national laws and violated relevant regulations. After organizing others to defraud exit documents in the name of tourism for many times, they entered Nepal to work, and their behavior has constituted the crime of organizing others to steal across the country (border). After Gong Moumou was brought to justice, he was able to truthfully confess his criminal facts, and he had a frank plot and could be given a lighter punishment according to law; Gong Moumou was sentenced to punishment for committing traffic accidents and may be given a heavier punishment as appropriate. Regarding Gong Moumou and his defender's opinion that Gong Moumou is an accomplice, after investigation, the testimony of witness Xiong confirmed that during the meal with Gong Moumou, Lin asked Gong Moumou if he had any friends working in Nepalese casinos; Witness Huang's testimony confirmed that Gong called at Kathmandu airport to ask his friend how to apply for a visa. The testimony of Jane and others confirmed that in KC casino, "Along" was responsible for arranging their work, and KC casino also deducted the corresponding air ticket fee when the salary was settled; Gong confessed that Lin asked him if he had any friends willing to work in Nepalese casinos, and provided relevant information such as working conditions and how to travel. Lin also helped book high-speed rail tickets and plane tickets. Therefore, combined with the above evidence, it can be concluded that Gong's acts of introducing others to work abroad and arranging trips to steal across the country (border) were all carried out at the instigation of others, and Gong played a secondary and auxiliary role in the crime, which can be considered as an accomplice. Gong Moumou and his defenders believe that Gong Moumou is an accomplice with factual basis and the court will adopt it.