criminal judgement

(2005) Jiang Xing Zi Chu No.0033

Public prosecution organ of Jiangyan Municipal People's Procuratorate.

Defendant Li Jianhua, male, born in September 1978, Han nationality, native of Jiangyan City, Jiangsu Province, junior high school education, farmer, living in Group 7, garden village, Chen Su Town, Jiangyan City. He was criminally detained on July 23, 2004 for this case and arrested on August 6 of the same year. Now detained in Jiangyan detention center.

Jiangyan People's Procuratorate accused the defendant Li Jianhua of the crime of explosion with indictment No.299 [2004] of Criminal Chu Zi, and filed a public prosecution with our court on June 5438+10/October 4, 2005. On the same day, our hospital filed a case, formed a collegial panel according to law, and heard the case in public. On June 365438+1October 3 1 day, 2005, Jiangyan City People's Procuratorate suggested that the trial be postponed, and on February 28, it requested to resume the trial. Xiao Chunlin, the procurator of Jiangyan People's Procuratorate, appeared in court to support the public prosecution, and the defendant Li Jianhua and his defenders Fan Yaping and Xu Lexiang attended the proceedings. The case was deliberated by the collegial panel and decided by the judicial committee. The trial is now over.

Jiangyan Municipal People's Procuratorate accused the defendant Li Jianhua of putting 1.33Kg black powder, some steel balls and pebbles into a self-made tin can from the end of 2003 to June 2004, connecting the battery, colored light bulbs and lead wires into a detonating device, putting it into a password box, and sticking the switch of the detonating device on the inside of two sliders of the password box zipper with "502" glue, and placing it. On July 1 2004, the explosive device was found in Yang Zhenwei and dismantled by public security personnel, without serious consequences. The People's Procuratorate of Jiangyan City believes that the defendant Li Jianhua deliberately used explosion to endanger public safety, and his behavior violated Article 114 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), so he should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of explosion. Jiangyan People's Procuratorate submitted the defendant's confession, witness testimony, on-site investigation record, documentary evidence, physical evidence, expert conclusion and other evidence to confirm the above contents.

Defendant Li Jianhua argued that he did not manufacture or place an explosive device, and was forced to plead guilty because he was tortured to extract a confession; Its education level is not enough to make explosive devices; The evidence also shows that he didn't collect gunpowder and didn't have time to weld tin cans. He is innocent.

Defender put forward the following main defense opinions: (1) The source of the tin can, gunpowder, password box and battery confessed by defendant Li Jianhua, the processing time of the tin can and the placing time of the explosive device are inconsistent, and there are doubts, and there may be major secrets in this case; (2) It is not credible that only one fingerprint is extracted from the Sprite bottle; On the surface, the handwriting of the threatening letter is obviously different from that of the defendant Li Jianhua, so the fingerprint and handwriting should be re-identified; (3) Investigators should be clear about the principle of explosive devices, which cannot explain the legality of investigation activities; It is obviously inappropriate for Sprite bottles not to be sealed. Therefore, it is not enough to conclude that the defendant Li Jianhua committed the crime of explosion. The explosive device in this case could not explode at all, and the explosive power of gunpowder was limited, which could only be an attempt.

It was found through trial that from the end of 2003 to June 2004, the defendant Li Jianhua put1.33kg of black powder, some steel balls and pebbles into a self-made tin can, connected batteries, colored light bulbs and lead wires to make an explosive device, put it into the password box together with the Sprite bottle filled with gasoline, and glued the switch of the explosive device on the zipper of the password box with "502" glue. On July 1 2004, the explosive device was found and dismantled by public security personnel. After identification, the tungsten filament of the color bulb connected in parallel to the detonating circuit of the explosive device has been broken or broken, and the whole circuit is disconnected and cannot be detonated.

The above facts are proved by the following evidence submitted by the procuratorial organ, and have been cross-examined and certified by the court:

(1) Witness Yang Zhenwei's testimony confirmed that on the morning of July 1, 2004, 1 yellow snakeskin bags with 1 password boxes were found in the disorderly brick pile on the north side of a tin shed in the east of his home, but they were not found when they arrived there the afternoon before; There are contradictions between his family and the defendant's family;

(2) The testimony of witness Yang Zhonglin confirmed that his family had twice filed a lawsuit with the defendant's family because of the open space problem, and they received a threatening letter without talking about it when they met;

(3) Witness Jia Tuying's testimony confirmed that on the morning of July 1 2004, Yang Zhenwei discovered the 1 password box, which was seen by Chen Guohua and others present, and the Yang Zhonglin family and the defendant family had a lawsuit for the homestead;

(4) The testimony of witnesses, Zhang Bucai, Gao Guangliang and Zhang confirmed that they were engaged in commercial operations in Taizhou or Jiangyan, selling solder paste, batteries, envelopes and stationery respectively. Zhang also confirmed that Li Jianhua, the defendant who went to his store with the public security personnel, bought stationery;

(5) The testimony of witnesses Mang Lee Shou and Liu Zeping confirmed that one day in April 2004, Mang Lee Shou parked his motorcycle in the defendant Li Jianhua's home, and the gasoline in the motorcycle tank was released;

(6) The testimony of witnesses Mei Hongping and Sun Zhu confirmed that from June 5 to February 38, 2003, the defendant Li Jianhua worked as a welder in Chenbeizhuang Shipyard and took his sister as an apprentice. No abnormal behavior of the defendant was found during the period;

(7) The testimony of witness Li Zhonglin (the father of the defendant) confirmed that before 2003, he and the girl set up a stall to sell "502" glue and other small department stores. Since then, newspapers, wires, plastic bottles, waste paper and 1 unopened firecrackers have been collected. Defendant Li Jianhua once closed the door to thank guests;

(8) The testimony of witness Li Jianrong confirmed that the defendant Li Jianhua filed a lawsuit with his neighbor Yang Zhonglin for an open space between the two families;

(9) The testimony of witnesses Dong Wang and Lin Haiming confirmed that Yang Aizhen and Zhu Weidong, the shopkeepers on the west side of the defendant's house, could not remember whether anyone had set off fireworks at the door of the store;

(10) The witness's testimony confirmed that he and his colleague Zhu went to the local police station to dismantle the explosive device in this case on the morning of July 2, 2004;

(1 1) The testimony of witnesses Lin Haiming, Wu Guicheng, Xia Jian and Hsu Chi chieh confirmed that all four of them participated in the investigation of the defendant Li Jianhua's suspected explosion, but they were unaware of the details of the explosive device; After their education and the leadership at the scene, the defendant Li Jianhua confessed the fact of writing threatening letters, manufacturing and placing explosive devices;

(12) Documentary list of physical evidence seized items and explosive devices (dismantled), which confirmed the source, composition and characteristics of explosive devices in this case;

(13) Documentary evidence obtained the list of articles and letters, which confirmed that after the incident, a person claiming to be from Xinjiang sent a threatening letter, claiming that he had done the explosives placed in Yang's house, and asked Yang's family to take back what they did not deserve, otherwise Yang and his family would not have a good end next time. Yang Zhonglin later handed this letter to the public security organ;

(14) library card of explosive device, which proves that the defendant Li Jianhua drew the diagram of 1 explosive device on July 23, 2004, reflecting the situation that the investigators extracted explosive devices in this case;

(15) Records of on-the-spot investigation, on-the-spot drawings and on-the-spot photos, which confirmed that the investigation organ conducted on-the-spot investigation on this case on the afternoon of July 2, 2004, and found and photographed a fingerprint and other on-the-spot investigations from the Sprite bottle in the password box;

(16) Identify the photos, envelopes and stationery at the scene, and confirm that the investigators took the defendant to identify the store of Gu Jinxing and others, and extracted the envelopes and stationery in the store;

(17) handwriting inspection certificate, which confirmed that the threatening letter received by Yang Zhonglin was written by the defendant Li Jianhua;

(18) handprint identification certificate and its attachments, which prove that the fingerprints extracted from Sprite bottles were identified by Jiangyan Public Security Bureau as left by the defendant Li Jianhua's right thumb;

(19) Physical evidence identification, confirming that "502" glue was detected on the paper in the explosive device;

(20) Technical appraisal report, which proves that the items in the password box are made of a metal container filled with black powder, a small light bead and a battery in parallel, and are typical explosive devices; The device takes black powder as the main charge and fuse and steel ball as fillers. Black powder is commonly used in fireworks and firecrackers, weighing 1.33Kg and TNT equivalent1.064kg; . The detonating circuit adopts three colored bulbs connected in parallel to plastic copper wires, and the shells of the three bulbs are all damaged, two of which have broken tungsten wires, and 1 bulbs are still intact, but 1 of them have broken pin wires, and the whole circuit is disconnected. If the filament is in good condition and the pins are connected correctly, when enough batteries are used for initiation, it has the initiation ability, which can cause death within the range of 1 meter.

In the process of cross-examination in court, the defendant Li Jianhua had no objection to the evidence that confirmed his family contradiction with Yang Zhonglin and the objective occurrence of this case, but objected to the evidence that confirmed his relevance to this case on the grounds that he was tortured to extract confessions or the appraisal conclusion was not objective. We noticed that the defendant Li Jianhua's confession at the investigation stage was contradictory, and we also noticed that the defender said that "there may be something hidden in this case".

After the defendant complained that he was tortured to extract confessions, the public prosecution agency investigated the investigators named by the defendant but not mentioned. The investigation results show that the investigators did not extort a confession by torture, and the defendant's statement could not be confirmed by other circumstantial evidence, so the excuse was not accepted.

Although there are contradictions in the defendant's confession, the following facts are not enough to affect the determination of his basic criminal facts, and the possibility of inducing confession and confession can be further ruled out: First, the scene investigation in this case was carried out before the investigators asked or interrogated the defendant Li Jianhua, and a fingerprint was extracted from the Sprite bottle, which was later identified as left by the defendant Li Jianhua, which is enough to prove that the defendant Li Jianhua had contacted the Sprite bottle; Secondly, the defendant Li Jianhua claimed that "502" glue was used to make explosive devices, but the investigators did not find it during the on-site investigation. Afterwards, the identification is like the defendant's confession, which should not be so consistent; Thirdly, the components and principles marked in the schematic diagram of the explosive device drawn by the defendant Li Jianhua in the confession process fully reflect the situation of the explosive device in this case, and it is impossible for people who have not experienced it personally to clearly mark the positions of various fillers in the device; Fourth, the threatening letter that attempted to divert the attention of investigators was posted by the defendant Li Jianhua afterwards; Fifthly, the defendant's family had a conflict with the neighbor Yang Zhonglin's family because of the homestead problem, and the defendant had the motive to commit the crime. Regarding the defendant Li Jianhua's defense based on his knowledge level and manufacturing ability, we notice that the explosive device in this case is a self-made device, and its principle is not complicated. The defendant can do it as long as he pays attention to himself and asks for other people's opinions, so this defense of the defendant is also untenable. Finally, regarding the defender's doubts about the two expert conclusions, our court believes that the expert procedure in this case is legal, the materials on which it is based are objective, and there are no other circumstances that affect the authenticity of the expert conclusions. At the same time, the expert conclusion was made by someone with special knowledge, which solved the specialized problems in the case. In the absence of evidence and reasons to the contrary provided by the defendant and his defenders, our court confirmed the probative effect of the appraisal conclusion and rejected the request for re-appraisal.

Regarding the defender's defense opinion that this case belongs to attempted crime, our court believes that attempted crime refers to the state of behavior that has begun to commit crimes and failed due to reasons other than the will of criminals. Generally speaking, the theory of criminal law holds that although the explosion crime is a dangerous crime, the failure of the crime is caused by reasons other than the will of the offender, and it is still an attempted form. In this case, the circuit in the explosive device is disconnected, so it can't explode. No explosion really belongs to reasons beyond the will of criminals, so it is an attempt.

To sum up, the court believes that the defendant Li Jianhua made and placed explosives, which was enough to endanger the life and health of unspecified people or the safety of public and private property, but failed because of reasons other than his will, and his behavior constituted an explosion crime (attempted) and should be punished according to law. Defendant Li Jianhua may be given a lighter punishment according to law for his attempted crime. Jiangyan Municipal People's Procuratorate accused the defendant Li Jianhua of the crime of explosion. The basic facts are clear, the evidence is true and sufficient, and the accusation is correct, so it is adopted. The defender's defense opinion that "the defendant Li Jianhua is an attempted crime" is adopted and can be considered in sentencing according to law; Other opinions put forward by the defendant and his defenders shall not be adopted. Accordingly, according to the provisions of Article 114th, Paragraph 1 of Article 56, Paragraph 1 of Article 55, Article 23 and Article 64 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the verdict is as follows:

1. Defendant Li Jianhua was convicted of attempted explosion, sentenced to five years and six months in prison and deprived of political rights for one year.

(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 fixed-term imprisonment, that is, from July 23, 2004 to June 22, 20 10. )

Second, the explosive devices of the crime tools shall be confiscated.

If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Taizhou City, Jiangsu 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.