Current location - Education and Training Encyclopedia - Resume - High marks help me find cases and analysis.
High marks help me find cases and analysis.
This will be more comprehensive and I hope it will help you.

Teachers: Hello!

Ask the teacher to search "fujian institute of research on the structure Lin Yide" on the Internet, and you will know how the legal circles, legal circles and intellectual circles throughout the country uphold justice for the safety of migrant workers in this remote mountain village.

Teachers are invited to enter the ——XX High-tech Law Forum where this case took place, and you will hear the strong voice of netizens on how to support the appeal and ask for a retrial!

Website:

lyd050328@ 163.com

QQ:460495554

Criminal prosecution

Complainant: XXX, male,1979165438+10 was born in XX county, XX province, with a primary school education. Former patrol member of Yokosaka Village, chen dai zhen, XX City, XX Province. I live in Fudong Village, Fujie Town, XX County 137. On suspicion of intentional injury, he was criminally detained on May 5, 2004 and arrested on June 7, 2004. On June 5438+February 65438+July 2004, Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court (2004) No.203 sentenced a suspended death sentence to 13 years' imprisonment and deprived of political rights for three years for "intentional injury"; On March 30, 2005, the XX Provincial High Court ruled that "the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld"; Now serving time in XX prison.

Authorized Agent: lyd0503, female, born on May 23rd, 1943, a native of Fu Jie, XX County, XX Province, Han nationality, undergraduate. Senior engineer of XXXXXX Institute of Chinese Academy of Sciences, now retired, is Zheng XX's cousin.

Cause of action: Complainant Zheng XX refused to accept the ruling of XX Provincial High Court on March 30, 2005 (2005)X Criminal Final Word No.209 and criminal judgment of XX Intermediate People's Court (2004)X Criminal Initial Word No.203, and filed a complaint!

Request: Request to start the trial supervision procedure according to law, cancel the ruling No.209 of (2005)X Criminal Final Word, and change the sentence according to law.

Facts and reasons: the complainant is a member of the village patrol. In order to perform public security duties and safeguard the interests of the masses, he arrested thieves with another patrol member; The thief was angrily beaten by the onlookers, and the complainant stopped him; Afterwards, in order to verify the owner, the complainant left the scene and the thief was taken back to the village office by another patrol member; When the complainant returned to the village office, he found that other security guards were interrogating the thief, but he did not participate; Then go out and look for tools to commit crimes, or drink tea to avoid hitting people; Finally, in order to show "gregarious", the complainant did not intentionally hurt the victim, but symbolically hit the thief on the leg and back two or three times; Later, the thief who had "self-harm" behavior died of unknown reasons on his way back; On this basis, the intermediate people's court and the higher people's court found that it was a joint crime. Without finding out the real cause of death and the real perpetrator of the thief, the complainant was given a heavy sentence of 13 years. The complainant believes that it is difficult to reflect the fairness and justice of the law by judging the case by imagination when the facts are unclear, the evidence is unreliable and insufficient. The complainant refused to accept this and filed a complaint, demanding a retrial and correcting the wrong judgment.

First, the court found that the facts were unclear and the cause of death of the victim (thief) was unknown.

The reasoning of criminal cases is exclusive, and the standard of proof of criminal crimes must exclude all reasonable doubts, which inevitably requires that the facts of the case must be completely clear. So are the facts identified in the judgment of the Intermediate People's Court and the ruling of the High Court clear?

(a) the "blood loss" of the death of "traumatic hemorrhagic shock" has not been ascertained, and the cause of death of the victim is unknown;

The transcripts, site maps and photos of the on-site investigation by the Public Security Bureau confirm that:

1, "There is blood on the east edge and side of the fourth step of the stairs, and there is also a small amount of blood on the ground below it." (Judgment P8); of the Intermediate People's Court);

2. "... the body of the victim Fang XX was found in front of the Jiajiale convenience store opposite chen dai zhen Yangdai Cunsheng Company. The body was lying on its back on a billiard table in front of the store, and there was blood on the billiard table under the head of the body (P7 judgment of the Intermediate People's Court).

3. The testimony of another thief, Wang XX, confirmed: "Fang XX and I were detained on some iron railings on the stairs, and then somehow Fang XX broke a hole in his head and shed some blood. He always said that he was thirsty and wanted to go to the toilet, and his hands hurt ... "(court transcript P044) (judgment of P6 Intermediate People's Court)

4. Defendant Huang XX confessed: "We came back from patrol and saw the head of Fang Donghai in white clothes bleeding, so we asked them why they were bleeding. Black clothes (Wang XX) said that white clothes hit the wall. The specific reasons are not clear. " (trial record p115. p112)

5. Guo XX confessed that after the trial and beating at 1 1: 30 in the evening, when he left, he said, "There was a thief quarreling on the stairs. He was injured, but there was no bleeding and nothing unusual." (trial record P 142).

6. It was found through trial that: ... during the cross-examination, the defendants Huang XX, Zheng XX and Guo XX, together with Chen X, Xu Zhenhua, respectively beat Fang Donghai, his hands, feet and back with rubber sticks and wooden sticks in the patrol station (the judgment of the Intermediate People's Court).

The above-mentioned investigation record, site map, photos, testimony and the conclusive evidence of these two "bloodstains" mutually confirmed by witnesses prove that:

The victim "lost blood", which is the most intuitive and important evidence of the autopsy conclusion of "traumatic hemorrhagic shock" death;

(2) The victim's head "lost blood", and there is no evidence to prove that it was caused by a rubber stick or a wooden stick. Therefore, it can be concluded that it was the thief's "self-mutilation" behavior, not the injury of many people at the scene (patrol office) for the second time, and it has nothing to do with the complainant Zheng XX.

However, the judgment of the Intermediate People's Court and the ruling of the High Court (hereinafter referred to as the "two books") did not explain how these bloodstains were produced. Evidence of its relationship with the death of thief XX. This practice of "ignoring" the conclusive evidence of the victim's "blood loss" makes people have to suspect that the thief's death may be a non-beating cause!

(2) The facts of the two beatings were unclear, which led to inaccurate conviction and improper sentencing.

"According to the autopsy, the deceased had a large area of soft tissue and muscle contusion and bleeding ... Analysis showed that the injury was caused by repeated blows with blunt instruments." Who caused these injuries? What kind of tools do you use? What do these injuries have to do with the death of the deceased? None of them were found.

1, the first important crime scene of the case (anger) is unclear.

(1) The stolen rented house was the first scene of beating people. As a thief, the deceased Fang XX was inevitably beaten by the masses in front of the indignant masses, and the beating was not light. Huang XX confessed: the thief Fang XX "was beaten in the rented house and brought to the team office, and his face was a little white. He (referring to Fang XX) said' he is ill', and we don't believe it. " (interrogation transcript p112.116) this testimony shows that Fang XX was fatally beaten before renting a house, and the injury was quite serious. Perhaps these beatings are the main cause of Fang XX's fatal death. It is entirely possible: even if there is no subsequent beating, the thief will die because of the public's angry beating, but this important crime scene and its consequences are a "blank" in the "two books", and there is no evidence to confirm this evidence, and there is no evidence to rule out the possibility of inference;

(2) In the mutually verified witness testimony, it is confirmed that a local young man hit the victim with a wooden stick at the door of the rental house. Who is that young man? Take which stick? Where did you call? Neither book mentioned it. The autopsy report says: "There are two sunken subcutaneous hemorrhages at the right scapula with a width of 3.8cm", indicating that the injury tool that caused the right scapula injury was an object with a striking cross section of more than 3.8cm. The field investigation record says: "A wooden stick with a carved handle and a diameter of about 4.5 73cm was inserted into the left rear side of a white motorcycle patrolling the joint defense team in Hengban Village, chen dai zhen". This shows that at the door of the rental house, someone beat the victim with a wooden stick with a diameter of 4.5cm. Besides beating the victim with a wooden stick, what tools were used to beat him? What is the degree of injury? What do these injuries have to do with Fang XX's death?

This is an important murder case. However, the "two books" made no mention of the witness testimony that the victim was beaten and injured by many onlookers at the scene of the first beating, but completely avoided talking about it, and did not find out who beat the victim among many onlookers. What kind of beating did you have? On this basis, combined with the conclusion of forensic expertise, it is determined whether there is a direct causal relationship between the injury caused by onlookers and the death of the victim in the sense of criminal law.

In fact, the statements of another thief, Wang Qingming, and the defendants, Huang XX and Zheng XX, proved that there were many people onlookers at that time, and they were all local people. Why did this "local" crime scene become a "blank"? Why not admit this fact?

(3) The High Court decided that it was wrong for Zheng XX to participate in the first scene beating.

Both the Intermediate People's Court and the Procuratorate have determined that the appellant Zheng XX was at the scene of the beating by the masses and did not participate in the beating, but the High Court insisted that Zheng XX participated in the beating. what is the purpose? ! Is it to strengthen the correctness of the original judgment? !

The judgment of the intermediate people's court is written like this:

① Quanzhou People's Procuratorate accused: On the evening of May 14, 2004, the defendant ... took them to the theft site to visit the owner. Outside the stolen rental house, Fang and Wang were beaten by onlookers (the judgment of the Intermediate People's Court).

② It was found through trial that at 9 o'clock in the evening of May 14, 2004, …… Fang and Wang were arrested and taken to their theft place … to visit the owner. Outside the rental house, Fang XX and Wang XX were beaten by the onlookers (judgment of the Intermediate People's Court).

③ The judgment of the Intermediate People's Court has found that "the defender's suggestion that the victim was beaten by the masses when he was arrested conforms to the facts of this case and is adopted" (P9 judgment of the Intermediate People's Court).

(4) The judgment of the Intermediate People's Court held that "in view of the obvious fault of the victim in the course of this case, and the three defendants were able to account for their crimes after they were brought to justice, ..."

Above explanation: The Intermediate People's Court ruled that Zheng XX was at the scene of the beating by the masses and did not participate in the beating.

However, the ruling of the High Court arbitrarily wrote: "After trial, it was found that the criminal facts of Zheng XX and Guo XX were confirmed by the following evidence: 1, and the testimony of witness Wang XX confirmed that 14 was taken to the place where he stole things at 9 o'clock on the evening of May 20, ... and was beaten by two patrol members and people around him ..." It was determined that Zheng XX participated in the first time. (Supreme Court ruling P4)

According to the Criminal Procedure Law, a confession cannot be accepted, and a verdict cannot be made solely on the confession. Therefore, confession can only be used as auxiliary evidence to confirm other evidence, and the probative force is not strong. It is impossible to make a final decision only by the confession of the members of the inspection team. Therefore, the strong evidence identified by the XX Provincial High Court is the testimony of witness Wang XX, witness Wang XX and other forensic experts. However, the professional knowledge of forensic doctors is uncertain, which will be analyzed clearly below; The testimony of Wang XX and others cannot explain the complainant's problems; The High Court actually let the "one-word testimony" of a thief Wang XX who was arrested and beaten and could never find anyone's trace as the criminal evidence of the patrol members who arrested the thief. In fact, the thief's testimony is not strong. First, because the case has a stake in him, the thief may retaliate against the patrol members and even hurt the deceased on his way back. Why else did he disappear after being detained and released? He could have come forward and demanded compensation for the beating.

2. The case of the second beating scene has not been fully investigated: mutually corroborating testimony confirms that 6-8 people participated in questioning and beat the thief for more than an hour at the second beating scene (patrol room), and some people beat the thief for twenty or thirty times; Someone punched and kicked; Some people play hard; Someone was involved in the beating from beginning to end. (interrogation transcript P 134. 135,139.142.11.1. On this basis, combined with the conclusion of forensic expertise, whether there is a direct causal relationship between the victim's injury and his death in the sense of criminal law is determined. But Erben didn't say anything. Although there are still more than three people who have not been brought to justice, the situation of the three people who have been brought to justice can be ascertained. However, the "two books" were not specifically identified. The responsibility of the perpetrator is unclear, how to convict? ! How is punishment reflected as a crime? !

(3) The autopsy is incomplete and the appraisal conclusion is uncertain;

1. Autopsy mainly showed irregular laceration of the head and contusion of the trunk and limbs (part of which was hollow subcutaneous hemorrhage). Among them, head injury and trunk injury are the key parts of human body. For these key parts, there is no detailed inspection. Such as the head, only the skull is examined, there is no epidural or subdural hematoma, and there is no mention of brain tissue damage or intracerebral hemorrhage changes. For the back of the corpse, because there is a large area of contusion in this part, it is necessary to dissect the spinal cord to confirm whether there is spinal cord injury. After systematic examination, if there is no obvious damage in gross pathology, important organs should also be extracted for pathological examination. The conclusion of "traumatic hemorrhagic shock" can only be drawn when all the important organs of the whole body are excluded from injury, but the autopsy did not do so. That is to say, although this appraisal conclusion is qualitative: "traumatic, hemorrhagic shock" death, but this qualitative is actually not established, because the appraisal conclusion has not adopted the exclusion method, there are still many doubts; Then this autopsy qualitative conclusion, which may not be established, will inevitably bring difficulties and inaccuracies to the court's judgment. The court should not have fully accepted this appraisal conclusion.

2. The tools that caused the injury have not been completely determined. The autopsy report only identified soft tissue and muscle contusion and bleeding, but did not identify the injury tools for head injury. The head injury was characterized by "irregular laceration at the top of the left temporal lobe", and the anatomy showed that "scalp bleeding at the top of the left temporal lobe was 9×4cm, no skull fracture was found, no hematoma was found in the intracranial epidural space, no hemorrhage was found in the subarachnoid space, and no fracture was found in the skull base". Obviously, an insider can understand at a glance that this head injury feature is formed by the interaction of an irregular plane object. However, in this case, both the confession of the criminals and the testimony of witnesses confirmed that the tools used by many defendants were wooden sticks and rubber batons, and the injury characteristics formed by these tools did not match the characteristics of head injuries.

Obviously, it can be inferred from the on-site investigation records, on-site maps, photos and other evidence. P8) The "tools" of head injury are located on the "east edge and side of the fourth step of stairs", which can mutually prove that the victim's "head bleeding injury" is caused by the victim's self-mutilation. This evidence, combined with the previous "blood" evidence, can clearly infer that there are other possible reasons for the victim's death, that is, the victim's self-mutilation is also one of the important causes of death!

On the contrary, the evidence that the court found Zheng XX guilty and sentenced him to heavy punishment was insufficient, and the "presumption" was very reluctant. It is impossible to find conclusive, consistent and mutually corroborating evidence like these that can prove the victim's "self-mutilation" from the "two books"!

For example, since Zheng XX is presumed to be the principal offender of "accomplice" who died of "intentional injury", it is necessary to provide evidence to determine whether there is a direct causal relationship between Zheng XX's injury to the victim (hitting his leg and back two or three times) and the victim's death in the sense of criminal law. The responsibility of proving the criminal suspect guilty lies with the public prosecution organ. The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that investigators should not only collect the evidence of the criminal suspect's guilt, but also collect the evidence of his innocence and light crime. Judging from the available evidence, even the evidence of the complainant's guilt is unclear, and the evidence is not true and sufficient.

The facts of the whole case are: the victim was injured at two beating scenes;

From the autopsy appraisal, it is concluded that the total area of contusion formed by the victim's beating accounts for about 24% of the body surface area, and the degree of injury is not serious enough;

Confirmed testimony, on-site investigation transcripts, on-site maps, photos and other evidence and evidence combinations confirmed that at the first beating site (rental house), a local beat the victim with a carved wooden stick with a diameter of 73cm, which was inserted in the left rear side of a white motorcycle patrolled by the defense team, resulting in two hollow strips of subcutaneous bleeding on the victim's right scapula. The size is 1 1×4cm, 12×4. 1cm, and the width of the depression is 3.8cm ",which is the most serious contusion on the victim's body surface (interrogation record p11)

The second beating scene (patrol office) did not use this wooden stick stuck on the left rear side of the patrol motorcycle, but used "a wooden stick with a length of 55cm and a diameter of 3.5cm on the sofa and two rubber batons with a length of 47cm on the wooden table"; Coupled with the above-mentioned multiple possibilities leading to the victim's death, these evidence combinations can be inferred: the injury caused to the victim at the second beating scene may be the secondary factor of the victim's death.

Furthermore, at the scene of the second beating, 6-8 people beat the victim for more than an hour, many of them were violently beaten, some were beaten for more than 20 or 30 times, or punched and kicked, and some participated from beginning to end (judgment P4, judgment P6, interrogation record P 133-4.5438+038+038).

Complainant Zheng XX spent most of his time waiting for the owner in the stolen rental house, and went to Wei Chao shoe factory to ask the boss to inform the owner, looking for the thief's crime tools and so on. He stayed at the beating scene for a short time, and borrowed tea twice to deliberately avoid beating thieves; Only in the end, in order to "fit in", I picked up a short wooden stick and symbolically hit the victim on the leg two or three times. Compared with other injurers, combined with the comprehensive investigation of the actor's goodwill behavior before and after this case, we can see that this passive and symbolic blow will not be very heavy. (interrogation transcript P 133. 139.438+023, written reply P4)

The above evidence and the combination of evidence prove that Zheng XX's two or three beatings on the victim's legs and back are the secondary factors of the victim's death, and there is no direct causal relationship between Zheng XX's minor beatings and the victim's death in the sense of criminal law.

(four) the victim left the patrol until his death, and the case of this important period was completely unclear.

1. Why the place of death was "transferred" has not been found out.

(1) Testimony of the thief Wang Qingming: After leaving the patrol station, we hired a two-wheeled motorcycle to drive in the direction of Yang Di, which is about six or seven hundred meters away. Fang XX said that his stomach hurt so much that he couldn't stand it, so I helped him down and lay on the side of the road. I took the bus to call his father ... and asked him to drive my motorcycle to find his son ... (page 045 of the trial record)

(2) Testimony of Fang XX (the father of the deceased): ... At 3 am, Wang XX came to me himself ... saying that my son Fang XX was on his way to Yokosaka Village, which was very dangerous ... I went to Osaka alone ... I saw my son Fang XX lying on the pool table and called him. He was dead, and then I called the police. "(query record P039,)

(3) "Site investigation records, site maps and photos confirm that the victim Fang XX's body was located in front of Jiajiale convenience store opposite to chen dai zhen Yangdai Cunsheng Company, and the body was lying on his back on the billiard table in front of the store, with blood on the billiard table below his head and a pair of black leather shoes under the billiard table;"

Why didn't the deceased die "lying on the side of the road" as another thief said, but moved to the pool table? How far is it from "lying on the side of the road" to the billiards table in front of "Jiajiale convenience store"? How did the victim "move over"?

2. No evidence was produced to rule out reasonable doubt.

What happened between the victim leaving the patrol and Fang's father reporting the case (about 3 hours)? The two books have no legal evidence to exclude the following three reasonable doubts:

The thief king XX didn't tell the truth. Why did you disappear after being detained and released, and you can wait for compensation for physical beatings; (Intermediate People's Court judgment: "The job description confirmed that Wang XX left after the end of public security detention, and he could not find it after many searches, so he could not make an injury appraisal. )

(2) Three people sitting on a motorcycle had an accident;

3 Party XX continues to "self-harm". He said "he has a stomachache" as an excuse. After Wang XX and the motorcycle driver left, they calmly moved from "lying on the side of the road" to the pool table in front of "Jiajiale Convenience Store", then took off their shoes and put them on the ground, and then climbed onto the pool table to lie on their back and "self-mutilate" and died. None of these problems have been found.

The reasoning of criminal cases is exclusive. The above evidence and evidence combination show that the victim may suffer other harmful behaviors on his way home after being released, but there is no relevant evidence in the "two books", which excludes the possibility of the victim's death due to other harmful behaviors.

There is no evidence to rule out whether the deceased has memory disease.

The testimony of relevant witnesses in the case file proves that the deceased may have a memory disorder:

Huang XX's two confessions at different times all talked about the abnormal state of the thief XX: "I was beaten in the rented room and brought to the team office, and my face was green and a little white. He (referring to Fang XX) said' he is ill', and we don't believe it. " (trial note p112.116); This testimony can infer two possibilities:

(1) Could the deceased really have a memory disorder? Because according to common sense analysis, the human body generally must have a large amount of bleeding in the aorta to lead to "hemorrhagic shock" death. However, there is no evidence of the victim's aortic bleeding in the file;

(2) The victim has been "angrily beaten" by the masses at the scene of the first beating, resulting in fatal injuries. However, the autopsy did not dissect the internal organs. Does it not rule out whether the deceased has memory diseases? Whether the memory disease broke out or died of trauma. If so, trauma is the cause of death, and memory disease is the direct cause of death.

The Autopsy Report of this case supports the inference of this possibility: since Fang XX's injury is mainly manifested in a large area of contusion on the body surface, accounting for about 24% of the body surface, and the degree of injury is not serious enough, there is no evidence to rule out the possibility that "internal diseases are the direct cause of death".

This once again shows that the "two books" have no evidence or evidence combination to prove that there are no other factors leading to the death of the victim XX.

To sum up, the facts identified in the court judgment and ruling are as follows:

1. The definite conclusion of autopsy is not the only, exclusive and valid correct conclusion. "Erben" can't rule out several other possibilities that lead to the death of the victim, which will inevitably lead to the death of the victim in this case as an "unsolved case" of "multiple causes and one fruit";

2. First, the case of many people "angrily beating" the thief at the scene was not clearly heard, which led to the lack of relevant evidence in the "two books" combined with the conclusion of forensic expertise to determine whether there is a direct causal relationship between the injury caused by the masses and the death of the victim in the sense of criminal law;

3. At the scene of the second beating, more than half of the "intentional injury" suspects were at large and not brought to justice, which was the objective reason for the unclear case; However, the "two books" did not find out what kind of harm the three defendants did to the victim and the intensity of the harm according to the statements of the three defendants who arrived at the case. On this basis, combined with the conclusion of forensic expertise, it is determined whether there is a direct causal relationship between the injury caused by the three defendants to the victim and the death of the victim in the sense of criminal law.

4. The "two books" have no evidence to prove that the victim did not suffer other injuries on his way home after being released, that is, the possibility that other injuries led to the victim's death was not ruled out.

The above situation proves that the facts identified by the court are not completely clear, and the evidence identified is not completely true and sufficient. Therefore, the accusation against the appellant Zheng XX is insufficient and arbitrary.

In order to explain that the facts identified in the two books are unclear, it is necessary to add a few figures. Although "numbers" are simple and absolute, it is often easy for people to "see at a glance" what the problem is.

(1) the time of committing the crime is about 8 hours (catching the thief around 9 pm until the father reports the case at 5 o'clock the next day). Only 1.5 hours was investigated, that is, only 19% was investigated.

(2) There are three stages in the process of committing a crime (the first is to beat the on-site rental; The second beat the on-site patrol; On the way home in the third stage, only 1 patrol was checked, that is, only 33% was checked.

③ There were many suspects at the scene of the first beating, and one of the local boys "beat up" the thief and found 0% blank.

④ There were 6-8 suspects at the scene of the second beating (see judgment P8), and only 3 suspects were brought to justice, that is, 50% of them were fully investigated.

⑤ In the third stage of the case, that is, the thief is on his way home, the case will be blank for about 3 to 4 hours, that is, 0% will be investigated.

In addition, there is a fact that one person has to ask in the investigation: there were eight suspects at the scene of the second beating, with locals and migrant workers accounting for half each:

⑥ Four foreign criminal suspects (Guo XX Zheng XX Huang XX Chen X )4 were brought to justice, and three of them were identified as 75%.

⑦ Local suspects (Xu XX, Xu XX, a local who drives an agricultural vehicle, and a person with a landlord are all at large, that is, check 0%.

For simplicity, we don't want to borrow students' arithmetic calculation: (19+33+0+50+0+75+0)/7 *100% = 25.2857%.

Of course, this calculation is unscientific, but this "rough estimate" is very telling: only 25% was checked! Students still need 60 points to pass the exam! A "murder case" ended so hastily? !

Looking back at the judgments of the two books, they were all decided on the premise that the thief was killed by the patrol team. They believe that there is no significant causal relationship between the death of the thief and the beating of the masses, the thief's own death, the accident or death on the way back later, the coincidence with the thief's potential illness, and the accelerated death of the beating.

However, in fact, it has been proved that this "premise" is untenable. According to the principle of "no doubt", this case can still be judged like this! ?

As the saying goes: grievances have heads and debts have owners. The real way to show legal justice is to find out what kind of harm they have caused to the victim and the intensity of the harm according to the witness testimony (another thief and car owner, etc.). ), on-site investigation transcripts, on-site maps, photos and other evidence, as well as the relevant statements of the three defendants who have been brought to justice. On this basis, combined with forensic evidence (the area where the victim was beaten and bruised accounted for about 24% of the body surface area, and the degree of damage was not serious), the legal responsibilities of the three defendants for the victim's injury were determined (while continuing to find out the cause of death and pursue the fugitive criminal suspect, and find out all the cases), instead of hastily asking the three people who have been brought to justice to bear criminal legal responsibilities for the death of the thief with unknown causes.

Second, the court is not allowed to convict and the sentence is improper.

Because there are many unclear facts in the whole case, perhaps because of the constraint of "solving the case within a time limit", XX Intermediate People's Court rashly presumed that Zheng XX was the principal offender of "joint crime" who died of "intentional injury", sentenced him to 13 years' imprisonment and deprived of political rights for three years. The judgment of the Intermediate People's Court stated that "the opinions put forward by the defender of the defendant Zheng XX, such as Zheng's subjective malignancy and obvious social harm, are unfounded and will not be adopted" (P10); The High Court ruled that "the original judgment was accurate and the sentence was appropriate", saying that "the appellant ... had a laissez-faire attitude towards the occurrence of the criminal result, which was consistent with the characteristics of joint crime" (the High Court ruled P5 ~ 6).

However, there is no conclusive evidence or evidence combination in the case file to support this "presumption" of "two books"

Intention stipulated in China's criminal law refers to the psychological state that the actor hopes or lets the harmful result happen, so it can be divided into direct intention and indirect intention; Direct intention is the psychological state of hoping to harm the result, which is manifested as active pursuit; Indirect intention is to let the harmful results happen.

As far as the whole case of this case is concerned, there are so many suspects, including many local people who have not been brought to justice, and those who have participated in beating people from beginning to end, some of them may be intentional directly or indirectly.

The appellant Zheng XX's behavior in the whole case just proves that he has neither "direct intention" nor subjective "indirect intention" psychology:

(1) Zheng XX's behavior in the whole process of this case (in chronological order):

1, serious and meticulous work: when he went out to patrol with the old patrol member Huang XX at 9 o'clock in the evening, he first found the suspicious thief, and suggested that he conduct an inventory to confirm his theft, and then arrested two thieves. He didn't "turn a blind eye" and perfunctory. (interrogation transcript P 123, written reply P 1)

2. Don't let the harmful consequences happen: take the thief and the lost property to find the owner. When the crowd beat the thief angrily, he didn't take part in the beating; While the thief was angrily beaten by the masses, he also called on the masses to stop fighting. He is worried that "this will not work, for fear of an accident." It is suggested that Huang Kaichuan take the thief back to the village Committee first. (If the subjective psychology wants to "intentionally hurt" to death, can it stop people from hitting people? Are you worried about an accident? (interrogation transcript P 123. 127, written reply P 1)

3. Earnestly perform the work: He took the initiative to say to Huang XX, "I will wait for the owner here, and the two thieves will take them to the village committee first"; When he didn't wait for the owner, he hurried to the owner's unit, Wei Chao Shoe Factory, to find the boss and asked him to help him find the owner. (interrogation transcript P 1 23.133.139, written reply p1)

4. Try to avoid beating: When Zheng XX 10 returned to the village committee at 10: 30, he saw Huang XX, Xu XX and "Xiao Chen" all beating thieves, but he was "changing his slippers and leaving".