Current location - Education and Training Encyclopedia - University ranking - How to define the law of throwing dung at people's homes because of disputes?
How to define the law of throwing dung at people's homes because of disputes?
Belonging to improper, illegal infringement, suspected criminal acts, the lighter can be punished by public security, and the heavier will be included in the criminal law and investigated for criminal responsibility.

News link: "Throwing dung at other people's homes for debt disputes was sentenced to one year in prison"

Shaanxi court network news: it is a matter of course to ask the debtor for arrears. However, it is possible to violate the criminal law to ask for it by illegal means. 20 1 14 years 1 25 October, Zizhou court publicly pronounced a case of intentional destruction of property caused by a private loan dispute, and sentenced the defendant Shi Xiaolin to fixed-term imprisonment of 1 year and suspended sentence of1month. Defendant Zhang Xiaojuan compensated the incidental civil plaintiffs Zhang Peng and Sean for their property losses 17433 yuan.

Because Zhang Peng (pseudonym)' s son Sean (pseudonym) owed a loan to Shi Xiaolin, Shi Xiaolin repeatedly failed to make a dunning. At about 438+02 19 o'clock on May, 2065, Shi Xiaolin came to Zhangjia alone and spilled the excrement in the toilet at home with buckets and spoons placed in Zhangjia's toilet, resulting in the loss of family property. According to the appraisal, the property loss of houses in Zhang Peng is 17 133 yuan.

After trial, the court held that the defendant Shi Xiaolin, after failing to urge for a loan, should have solved it through legal channels, but deliberately illegally damaged public and private property, and the amount was large. His behavior violated the ownership of public and private property, violated China's criminal law, and constituted the crime of deliberately destroying property. After committing a crime, the defendant Shi Xiaolin was able to truthfully confess his criminal facts, had a good attitude of pleading guilty, did show remorse, and was not in danger of recidivism. The announcement of probation has no significant adverse effect on the community where he lives. Therefore, the above judgment was made according to law.