Lawyer

Chapter 360 The crime is legally punishable and cannot be exceeded
In Fang Yi's view, from a moral point of view, one side is desperately asking for legal debts for the company, while the other side is bankrupt and has not paid back the money. Both sides have their own difficulties, and all the contradictions are squeezed together. The victim (debtor) couldn't bear the pressure and committed suicide.It is difficult to distinguish between right and wrong in this case.

In fact, such things as debt duress have existed since ancient times, and debtors commit suicide everywhere. It is difficult to find any way to truly alleviate the conflict between the two parties. Only money can solve thousands of miseries.

money!It's honey, and it's also a murder knife.

"Do the prosecutors, defenders, and appellants have any new evidence to submit?" asked the presiding judge.

"There is no new evidence." Sanfang said.

……

"The court investigation is over, and the court debate is now underway. Before the debate, the court draws the attention of both the prosecution and the defense. The debate should focus on determining charges, sentencing and other controversial issues.

The appellant Cheng Wu can defend himself. " said the presiding judge.

"I never detained Huacheng, and I never thought of hurting him. I just wanted to pay back the debt he owed us. If it weren't for the company's operational difficulties, I wouldn't press the debt so hard, and I wouldn't be able to go back after the Spring Festival. Home..." As he spoke, Cheng Wu's eye circles were red, and his eyes were a little moist.

"Next, the defender of the appellant Cheng Wu will speak." said the presiding judge.

"The defender believes that the appellant Cheng Wu does not constitute the crime of illegal detention for the following reasons:
According to the "Criminal Law", the crime of illegal detention refers to the act of illegally depriving others of their right to physical freedom by illegal detention, confinement or other methods.

The evidence provided by the public prosecution cannot yet prove that Cheng Wu, the appellant, had detained Hua Cheng, nor could he prove that Cheng Wu had forcibly prevented Hua Cheng from going out.According to Cheng Wu's confession, the appellant Cheng Wu not only did not stop, but encouraged Hua Cheng to go home or go to friends to raise money several times.

In addition, Cheng Wu did not forcibly designate Hua Cheng's travel route, but only followed Hua Cheng.Hua Cheng's personal freedom was only restricted, but not deprived.

That is to say, the behaviors of eating together, living together, and traveling together did not reach the level of depriving the victim of freedom.The court of first instance found that the appellant's actions constituted the crime of illegal detention, which was due to inaccurate characterization of the case and improper application of the law.

The defender believed that the appellant, Cheng Wu, constituted the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles, not enough to constitute the crime of illegal detention. Since the purpose was to recover legal debts, the social harm was relatively small, and he had confessed and repented, he asked the court to change the sentence of the appellant to probation according to law.complete. "Fang Yi said.

Fang Yi didn't want to, and didn't dare to challenge the IQ of the judge of the intermediate court. He was learning every day. Even if he didn't mention the matter of provoking trouble, there was a high probability that the judge would give the same sentence, but the sentencing might not be so friendly. First, it is not good for Cheng Wu, and cleverness is misunderstood by cleverness.It's better to make it clear and defend against the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, so that the judge can consider it when sentencing.

"Now it's up to the prosecutor to speak." The presiding judge said.

"...the appellant Cheng Wu, in order to ask for the debt, monitored the victim for 24 hours by means of eating and living together, traveling with him, etc., which severely restricted the victim's freedom and daily life, which in turn led to the serious consequences of the victim's suicide.

We believe that the court of first instance found the facts clearly and applied the law appropriately, and we request the court to reject the appellant's appeal in accordance with the law.complete. "Prosecutor Li said.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinion." The presiding judge looked up at the public prosecutor's seat.

"In response to the defender's defense, we believe that both restriction of liberty and deprivation of liberty are prohibited by law, and we believe that severe restriction of freedom expansion can be interpreted as deprivation of liberty.

The appellant, Cheng Wu, used the method of eating, living and traveling with the victim Huacheng to remind the victim for several months, which severely restricted Huacheng's freedom. Therefore, we believe that the defendant Cheng Wu constituted the crime of illegal detention.complete! "Prosecutor Li said.

"The defender can respond to the prosecutor's opinion." The presiding judge said.

"Based on the Prosecutor's defense opinion and response, the defender issued the following defense opinion:

The crime of illegal detention is manifested as preventing the victim from moving freely.For example, illegal detention, forced confinement, illegal isolation and inspection, etc., but no matter which method is used, it is characterized by illegal deprivation of other people's personal freedom.In other words, only when the victim is deprived of his freedom can he be identified as the crime of illegal detention.

Paragraph 30 of Article [-] of No.[-] of the "Constitution" stipulates that "unlawful detention and illegal deprivation or restriction of citizens' personal freedom by other means are prohibited."

Article 240, Paragraph [-] of the Criminal Law stipulates, "Bringing trafficked women and children, illegally depriving and restricting their personal freedom..."

It can be seen from the above provisions that 'deprivation' and 'restriction' are in a parallel relationship, indicating that the meanings of the two are different.According to the principle of legally prescribed punishment for a crime, if the law does not expressly stipulate that it is a crime, it shall not be convicted and punished.

Any interpretation cannot break through the provisions of the law, let alone equate restricting or severely restricting the personal freedom of others with deprivation of personal freedom.

Generally speaking, illegal deprivation of personal liberty includes two categories: one is the direct application of external force to the victim's body to physically deprive him of his physical liberty, such as being held in a certain room and prohibiting him from going out.The other is to control the victim's psychology so that he cannot or dare not move freely.

In this case, the victim, Hua Cheng, was not physically or psychologically controlled and lost his freedom.Therefore, the defender believes that the behavior of the appellant Cheng Wu does not constitute the crime of illegal detention.

In addition, the "Criminal Law Amendment (VIII)" added the act of "intimidating" others to the [-] "Criminal Law" on the objective behavior of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble.

The defender believes that Cheng Wu's behaviors of eating together, living together, walking together, and carrying out minor violence and intimidation are acts of picking quarrels and provoking troubles to intimidate others, and should be convicted and punished as the crime of trouble-seeking.The reasons are as follows:
According to the evidence provided by the public prosecutor, the appellant Cheng Wu has been with the victim Hua Cheng for a long time, eating and living with the victim. Hua Cheng's freedom is restricted and known to many people.

Both Hua Cheng and his family members had called the police. After the police arrived, they repeatedly asked Cheng Wu to collect debts normally and stop the behavior of restricting personal freedom. It has already caused some damage to the social order.

According to the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Troubles", the actor beats, insults, threatens or Acts such as damaging or occupying other people's property are generally not considered to be 'picking quarrels and provoking trouble', except for those who continue to implement the preceding acts after being criticized, stopped or dealt with and punished by relevant departments, except for disrupting social order.

Based on the above explanation, the defender believes that the appellant Cheng Wu constituted the crime of seeking a gap and provoking trouble.

According to the provisions of Article [-] of the above-mentioned interpretation, 'Where the perpetrator confesses his guilt, repents, actively compensates the victim for losses or obtains the victim's forgiveness, he may be given a lighter punishment; if the crime is minor, he may not prosecute or be exempted from criminal punishment. '

Although the appellant Cheng Wu did not agree with the charges determined by the court of first instance, he has realized the harm his actions have brought to the victim, and is willing to bear the corresponding legal responsibility, and is willing to repent and rehabilitate. Criminal punishment, the defender suggested that the appellant be sentenced to probation!complete. "Fang Yi said.

(End of this chapter)