In August, 2000 1 1, Liaoyuan People's Procuratorate accused the defendant Hu of committing robbery and robbery, and defendant Xiao Kui prosecuted for robbery and robbery. The court formed a collegial panel according to law and heard the case in public. Liaoyuan Municipal People's Procuratorate appointed Shi Yuan, the acting procurator, to appear in court to support the public prosecution. Defendants Hu and Xiao Kui and defenders attended the proceedings. The trial is now over.
The People's Procuratorate of Liaoyuan accused the defendants Hu, Xiao Kui and Qi Naijun (at large) of robbery in Longshan District of Liaoyuan City on February 1 1 2000, and snatched a leather jacket, a telephone, a semiconductor, cigarettes, ID cards and cash of more than 90 yuan.
Defendant Hu also robbed two lighters, a combination knife and more than 300 yuan in cash with Zhao Hengjiang (handled separately) and Gong Li (handled separately) in Dadong District of Shenyang on 1999 12.
Defendants Hu and Xiao Kui also robbed others of more than 600 yuan in cash in Liaoyuan Railway Station vegetable market on February 15, 2000.
In addition, from August 1999 to 10 65438+2000, the defendant Hu and Zhao Hengjiang (at large) committed three burglaries in Fangjialan Community, Hunhebao Village and Changqing Community, Dongling District, Shenyang City, stealing TV sets, cameras, BP machines and cash, with a total value of/.
In response to the above allegations, the prosecutor read out the statements of the victims Zhan, Dong Xinglin, Cui, Gong Chunling and Li Xia in court. The identification record of the victim Zhan in the public security organ, the testimony of the witness Tian Xingguo, the confessions of the co-suspects Zhao Hengjiang and Gong Li, the investigation report of the public security organ, the criminal science and technology appraisal of the public security organ, the appraisal conclusion of the price department, the list of items seized and returned by the public security organ, and the photos of physical evidence. To prove the fact that the two defendants robbed, robbed and stole.
The public prosecution agency believes that the defendant Hu's behavior constitutes robbery, robbery and theft, and the defendant Xiao Kui's behavior constitutes robbery and robbery. After the defendant Xiao Kui was arrested, he voluntarily confessed his criminal facts and surrendered himself. These two defendants should be punished.
Defendants Hu and Xiao Kui admitted that the alleged criminal facts were true. Defendant Hu argued that he didn't know that Qi Naijun and Gong Li robbed, nor did he rob himself, and asked for a lighter punishment. Defendant Xiao Kui did not put forward any defense opinions. The two defendants had no objection to the evidence provided by the public prosecutor in court and did not cite other relevant evidence.
Defendant Hu's defender put forward defense opinions during cross-examination and debate: 1. Defendant Hu played an auxiliary role in the robbery joint crime and was an accessory, so he should be given a lighter punishment. 2. The fact that the defendants Hu and Xiao Kui robbed. As the amount has not reached a great extent, the fact that Hu robbed them does not constitute a crime. 3. The public prosecution agency accused the defendant of theft, only the victim's statement and the defendant's statement, and there was no other evidence to prove it, and the defendant's statement was inconsistent with the victim's statement. Therefore, the defendant was found guilty of theft and the evidence was insufficient. The above defense opinions were put forward by the defender Steven Song against the accusation and proof of the public prosecution agency, and the defender did not provide further evidence.
After trial, we made the following judgments on the facts and evidence of both the prosecution and the defense:
1.On February, 2000 1 1 day, the defendants Hu and Xiao Kui fled to the ballroom of Liaoyuan Electric Machinery Factory with Qi Naijun (at large), and Qi Naijun cheated the victim Zhan away, followed by Hu and Xiao Kui. Qi Naijun walked into Zhan's home, while Hu and Xiao Kui waited outside. Qi Naijun took out the leather jacket, BP machine, telephone, semiconductor, cigarette, ID card and RMB 90 yuan from the chocolate candy containing triazolam provided by Hu in advance. All the money and materials above were squandered except leather jackets and BP machines.
The above facts are confirmed by the following evidence: 1. The investigation report of the public security organ proves that the above facts were voluntarily confessed by the defendant Xiao Kui before the public security organ grasped them, and were investigated and verified by the public security organ. According to Xiao Kui's instructions, Hu, Xiao Kui and Qi Naijun followed a man out of the ballroom of the electric machine factory, and Qi Naijun accompanied the man to his home. After anesthetizing the man with triazolam, he snatched the leather jacket, BP machine and RMB 90 yuan. 2. The victim Zhan's statement proves that Zhan took the woman to his home in the ballroom of Liaoyuan Electric Machinery Factory. The woman gave Zhan a piece of candy, and Zhan fell asleep after eating it. The next day, Zhan woke up and found the fact that 90 yuan had been robbed of his leather jacket, BP machine and cash. 3. The leather jacket obtained by the public security organ from the defendant Xiao Kui and the BP machine obtained from the "intermediary bank" were identified as robbed by the victim Zhan. 4. The appraisal conclusion of price appraisal proves that the value of leather jacket 200 yuan and Casio BP machine is 100 yuan. 5. The criminal scientific appraisal certificate proves that the chocolate candy from Hu contains triazolam.
The above evidence is provided by the public prosecution agency. After cross-examination, neither the defendant nor the defender raised any objection, which was verified by our court. Based on the above-mentioned evidence, the court ruled that the evidence provided by the public prosecution agency for the above-mentioned facts was indeed sufficient to prove the above-mentioned robbery facts, and the court confirmed it.
Second, the defendant Hu and Zhao Hengjiang (handled separately) and Gong Li (handled separately) robbed in Dadong District, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province on June 5438+February 10. Hu and Zhao Hengjiang provide triazolam medicine for Gong Li. Gong Li anesthetized the victim Dong Xinglin with triazolam in his home, and snatched a mobile phone, three lighters, a combination knife and RMB 300 yuan. The above-mentioned robbed lighters and combination knives have been recovered and returned, and the rest have been squandered.
The above facts are confirmed by the following evidence provided by the public prosecution agency: 1. The investigation report of the public security organ proves that this fact is the fact that Zhao Hengjiang, a co-suspect, voluntarily confessed by the Shenyang public security organ and was investigated and verified by the public security organ. According to Zhao Hengjiang and Gong Li's confession, Hu and Zhao Hengjiang provided Gong Li with triazolam medicine, and Gong Li went to the victim's house to anesthetize Dong Xinglin with triazolam medicine, and took away a mobile phone, three lighters, a combination knife and RMB 300 yuan. 2. The statement of the victim Dong Xinglin proves that Dong Xinglin was robbed by a woman at her home in Dadong Road, Dadong District, Shenyang, and was robbed of 3 mobile phones, lighters 1 piece, combination knives 1 piece and cash 300 yuan. The lighters and combination knives seized by the public security organs from Zhao Hengjiang were identified as robbery by Dong Xinglin. After cross-examination, the defendant Hu and his defender raised no objection to the above-mentioned evidence of the prosecution, which was verified by our court and confirmed by our court.
Defendants Hu and Xiao Kui fled to the vegetable market in front of Liaoyuan Railway Station on February 5, 2000. After premeditated, Hu went back to the hotel to wait, and Xiao Kui smashed the glass of the vegetable market with bricks and took away Cui Renminbi 600 yuan. The robbed money has been squandered.
The defendant and the defender did not raise any objection to this fact. The investigation report of the public security organ provided by the public prosecution agency proves that this fact was investigated and verified by the public security organ after Xiao Kui truthfully confessed, and the time and place of the crime and the amount of money robbed by the victim Cui were consistent with Xiao Kui's confession. Our court has verified the truth and confirmed the facts accused by the public prosecution agency.
4. Defendant Hu You fled to Hunhebao Village, Wusan Township, Dongling District, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province with Zhao Hengjiang on June 5438+ 10, 2000, and invaded a residential building from the balcony, stealing RMB 500 yuan, 2 TV sets, VCD 1 set, BP 2 sets and other clothes with a total value of RMB 6,500.
The following evidence confirms this fact: 1. The investigation report of the public security organ proves that this fact was investigated and verified by the public security organ after the accomplice Zhao Hengjiang was confessed by the public security organ. 2. The statement of the victim Gong Chunling proved the fact that two televisions, a VCD player, a cash 500 yuan and a leather jacket were stolen from Gong Chunling's home around New Year's Day in 2000. Zhao Hengjiang, an accomplice, confessed in the public security organ that he and Hu had stolen two TV sets and a VCD player in a residential building in Hunhebao village before the Spring Festival in 2000. 4. The appraisal certificate of Liaoyuan Municipal Price Bureau confirms that two TV sets are worth 5,000 yuan and one VCD is worth 1 1,000 yuan.
The above evidence was provided by the public prosecution agency, and the defendant Hu did not raise any objection. According to the judgment of our court, the statement of the victim Gong Chunling collected by the public security organ is consistent with Zhao Hengjiang's confession, which proves that Zhao Hengjiang's confession is true and the defendant Hu undoubtedly participated in the theft. It is not that the defendant's statement is inconsistent with the victim's statement. Therefore, the defense opinion put forward by the defender is incorrect and will not be adopted by our court. We confirm the above facts and evidence.
The fact that the public prosecutor accused the defendants Hu and Zhao Hengjiang of stealing in Fangjialan community and the fact that the defendants Hu and Zhao Hengjiang stole in Changqing community. After discussion by the Judicial Committee of our hospital, it is considered that although the confession of the defendant Hu and the confession of Zhao Hengjiang, the two theft cases accused by the public prosecution agency, are mutually confirmed, the facts of the stolen property stated by the defendants Hu and Zhao Hengjiang are inconsistent with the facts of the type and quantity of the stolen property stated by the victim and Li Xia, and the evidence is insufficient to prove the two theft cases. The defender's defense opinion is correct and should be adopted. Therefore, our hospital does not recognize the two theft facts accused by the public prosecution agency.
Defendant Xiao Kui actively assisted others to rob houses for the purpose of illegal possession, which constituted robbery and should be punished. Defendant Xiao Kui played a minor role in the robbery joint crime and was an accessory, so he should be given a lighter punishment. Defendant Xiao Kui was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for theft. Whoever commits a crime that should be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment or more within five years after the execution of the penalty. Is a recidivist, should be severely punished. The defendant Xiao Kuiyin acted suspiciously, and after being questioned and educated by the judicial organs, he voluntarily confessed his crimes. According to the provisions of Item (1) of Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Cases of Surrender and Meritorious Service, it shall be deemed as surrender. Article 67 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that a person who voluntarily surrenders himself after committing a crime and truthfully confesses his crime is a voluntary surrender. Defendant Xiao Kui was able to truthfully confess the facts of robbery during the trial, and his behavior was in line with the provisions of this article. He surrendered himself and could be given a lighter punishment. Based on the above statutory heavier and lighter circumstances, combined with the criminal facts, circumstances and guilty attitude of the defendant Xiao Kui, the defendant Xiao Kui should be given a lighter punishment within the statutory punishment range. The public prosecutor accused the defendant Xiao Kui of committing robbery, and his opinion of surrender was correct and should be supported.
Regarding the fact that the defendants Hu and Xiao Kui robbed, according to the victim's testimony, the amount of robbery was RMB 600 yuan, which has not yet reached a large amount, that is, the fact does not conform to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 267 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on the constitutive elements of robbery, and it belongs to a case with obvious circumstances and little harm. According to the provisions of Article 13 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), it is not considered a crime. Defender Steven Song's defense opinion is correct and should be supported. Therefore, the opinion that the public prosecutor accused the two defendants of committing robbery could not be established, and our court did not support it.
Calling the defendant a friend of the country shall be in accordance with the provisions of Article 263, paragraph 1, Article 55, Article 56, Article 58, Article 264, Article 25, paragraph 1, Article 26, paragraph 4, Article 52 and Article 69 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). According to the provisions of Article 263, Paragraph 1, Article 25, Article 27, Article 55, Article 56, Article 58, Article 65, Paragraph 1, Article 67, Paragraph 1 and Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Surrender and Meritorious Service, the defendant Xiao Kui was sentenced as follows.
1. The defendant was convicted of robbery, sentenced to 12 years in prison, deprived of political rights for two years, and fined RMB 2,000; He was convicted of theft, sentenced to three years in prison and fined RMB 10000. Combined punishment for several crimes, a total of 15 years in prison, 14 years in prison, deprivation of political rights for two years and a fine of 12000 yuan. (The term of imprisonment shall be counted from the date of execution of the judgment. If a person is detained before the execution of the judgment, one day of detention shall be reduced to one day of imprisonment, that is, from March 1 2000 to February 28/20 14).
2. Defendant Xiao Kui committed robbery and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, deprived of political rights for one year and fined RMB 1000. (The term of imprisonment 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 imprisonment, that is, from March 1 2000 to February 20 10/0).
If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can appeal to the Higher People's Court of Jilin Province through our court or directly within ten days from the second day of receiving the judgment. If a written appeal is filed, one original and two copies of the appeal shall be submitted.