Lawyer

Although Fang Yi knew that the defendant's self-surrender was untenable, he had no choice but to present what was beneficial to the defendant and hand it over to the collegial panel for judgment.

Regarding the statement of "robbing common property", although Fang Yi intended to open up for the defendant Tang Renguo, Fang Yi felt that this statement was tenable in terms of the family's joint property.Although the defendant had his share of the robbery money, he did infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of other owners of common property rights, which must constitute a crime.

If such a crime committed by a family member is not reported to the police, it can only be dealt with internally. Once the police is reported, the state machinery will start a chain reaction, and the family members will have the final say on the subsequent matters.

As for the matter of "household robbery", Fang Yi thinks so. Since the defense has been set on the crime of robbery, the judge will definitely think of the defendant's house robbery, so Fang Yi should try his best to explain the matter thoroughly. , to rule out the circumstances that may aggravate the punishment.

As for the aggravating circumstances that cannot be denied, such as 'causing serious injury to the victim' and 'huge amount of robbery', they can only be resigned to fate. The facts are there, and the evidence is overwhelming. The judge's distaste did not fit his defense style.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defense opinion of the defender." The presiding judge said.

"Okay, in response to the Defender's defense, we believe that:
[-]. The defendant Tang Renguo and Jiang Sanfu did not agree on the intent to rob.

Although the defendant Tang Renguo asked Jiang Sanfu to go with him to his supermarket to make money, but at first the defendant told Jiang Sanfu that the supermarket was closed and no one was there, so the latter followed the defendant to the supermarket. With the intent to rob, but with the intent to steal.The purpose of the two going to the supermarket was not to rob.

[-]. The defendant did not have the circumstances of surrender.

Although the "Criminal Law" and the judicial interpretations do not clearly stipulate that the criminal suspect must clearly inform the judiciary that he has surrendered, so that automatic surrender can be established.

However, Article 60 of No.[-] of the "Criminal Law" stipulates, "Whoever voluntarily surrenders to the police after committing a crime and truthfully confesses his crime is a voluntary surrender." '

It can be seen from the above provisions that criminals must clearly inform the judiciary that their purpose is to surrender, which is an essential requirement for automatic surrender.As long as the criminal suspect voluntarily goes to the judiciary for the purpose of surrender, no matter whether the judiciary has grasped the facts of his crime and decided to take compulsory measures against him, he should be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered.

In this case, the public security organ in the township has received the investigation report from the Municipal Public Security Bureau, and has grasped the criminal facts of the defendant. surrendered.

However, the real purpose of Tang Renguo, the defendant in this case, coming to the public security organ was not to surrender, but to find out whether the victim was dead.Afterwards, the public security organ arrested him. Although the defendant truthfully confessed his main criminal facts, because he lacked the condition of voluntary surrender, he could not be deemed to have surrendered himself.

To sum up, we believe that the defendant constituted the crime of intentional homicide and did not surrender himself.complete. "Prosecutor Fang Yi's defense opinion made what he thought was the most powerful counterattack.

"The defender can respond to the public prosecutor's opinion." The presiding judge said with drooping eyelids, looking at the case file in his hand.

"In response to the public prosecutor's defense opinion and response, the defender made the following comments:

[-]. The defendant and Jiang Sanfu had the intention to conspire to rob.

Although in the Internet cafe, the defendant Tang Renguo asked Jiang Sanfu to go to the supermarket to get money, he told Jiang Sanfu to go to his own supermarket in the early morning and no one was on duty, but when the two pried open the back window and climbed into Tang's small supermarket, they found The victim Tang Ming was in the lounge.

According to the results of the previous discussion, the two should stop making money and leave the small supermarket at this time, but in fact the two did not leave the Tang family's supermarket.

The defendant arranged for Jiang Sanfu to watch at the door, and the latter readily agreed. After entering the rest room, the defendant failed to ask the victim for money, and committed violence against the victim's resistance.

At this time, the nature of their behavior has changed, from theft to robbery.Moreover, after the incident, Jiang Sanfu entered the room and found that Tang Ming, who was lying on the bed, did not stop the defendant's behavior, but participated in "returning money" and dividing the money, which shows that the two had the intention to rob.The meaning of making money has become robbery.

[-]. Even if the defendant’s behavior does not constitute surrender, the defendant’s truthful confession after being arrested also provides convenience for the police to solve the case. The defender suggested that the collegial panel should consider it when sentencing.complete. "

Fang Yi saw that the other party played with the surrender so clearly, so don't carry it on, and take a step back and ask the court to consider the defendant's truthful confession when sentencing.

……

After the trial ended, the court was adjourned for 10 minutes, and then the presiding judge pronounced the sentence in court.

After the trial, the intermediate court held that the defendant Tang Renguo used violence for the purpose of illegal possession.Illegal possession of other people's legal property constitutes the crime of robbery.

Although Tang Renguo and the victim Tang Ming are joint members of the family, Tang Renguo only participated in the operation of the small supermarket for a short time and is not the owner of the supermarket property.Tang Renguo used violence to forcibly occupy other people's legal property. His behavior conforms to the subjective and objective elements of the crime of robbery, and should be convicted and punished as the crime of robbery.

The public prosecution agency's accusation of the defendant Tang Renguo's criminal facts is established and supported, but the accusation is inappropriate.The judgment of the intermediate court: the defendant Tang Renguo committed the crime of robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, and fined RMB 4000.

Jia Zongxia in the auditorium is very clear about what life imprisonment means to a young man in his twenties, and so is Tang Ming.After the trial was over, Tang Ming got up and left the court without saying anything.

After Jia Zongxia watched her son being taken away, she also left the court in a daze.Although the result was not very good, Jia Zongxia was basically acceptable, and it was in line with what Fang Yi told her back then.

After the verdict was issued, Fang Yi came to the detention center again and met with Tang Renguo.

"The verdict has been issued. After it takes effect, you will be transferred to prison to serve your sentence. Is there anything you need me to tell your mother?" Fang Yi asked.

"Please tell my mother, I was wrong! I will repay the kindness of nurturing after I go out. Let her take care of her body." After hesitating for a moment, Tang Renguo looked at Fang Yi and said, his eyes were full of regret.

"Well, I will definitely convey your words to your mother. Do you want to appeal?" Fang Yi asked.

"No, the judge is right. If you do it, you have to admit it. You can't run away if you have to bear it. By the way, how is my friend Huang Mao...?" Tang Renguo hesitated and asked.