Xue Dong had a fat black face, glared at Li Chao deadly, and then loudly expressed his arguments, "Respected presiding judge and judge, I, as the defendant's defender, make the following arguments. The defendant was acquitted of robbery and should be acquitted. ”

"First of all, I would like to point out three mistakes of the opposing party's attorney ad litem. The first mistake made by an agent ad litem is the analogy of guilt. Article 8 of the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Robbery and Snatching" stipulates that there is a precondition, that is, the perpetrator has first committed criminal acts such as injury and assault. Specifically, in this case, the defendant had sex with a man, which was not a criminal act at all, and did not meet the preconditions set forth in this article. ”

"In this regard, I would like to point out in particular that the defendant in this case did not commit a predicate criminal act, and this provision does not apply at all in this case. In citing this provision, the defendant committed the mistake of inferring guilt by analogy, and directly inferred by analogy. ”

"Article 8 stipulates that if a man or a woman commits the crime of QJ, and after the completion of the QJ, takes advantage of the situation where the victim is unable to resist or dare not resist, and temporarily attempts to rob the victim's property, the punishment for the crime of QJ and the crime of robbery committed before shall be combined with the punishment for the crime of robbery. The agent ad litem presumed that the defendant sexually assaulted a man, and the defendant took the man's property, and should be punished for the crime of robbery. ”

"From the logic of the agent ad litem's thinking, we can clearly see that the agent ad litem uses the presumption of guilt by analogy. And China's criminal law clearly prohibits the presumption of guilt by analogy! Therefore, the court was requested not to uphold the opinion of the agent ad litem. ”

"The second mistake made by the agent ad litem was to accuse the defendant of a burglary. According to article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Robbery Cases dated 17 November 2000, "home robbery" refers to the act of committing robbery by entering a residence that is relatively isolated from the outside world for the purpose of committing robbery, including closed courtyards, herdsmen's tents, fishing boats used by fishermen as family living places, and houses rented for daily life. ”

Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Robbery and Robbery, dated June 8, 2005, further refines and regulates "burglary" on the basis of a signed interpretation, that is, it stipulates that: when determining "burglary", attention shall be paid to the following three issues;

The first is the scope of 'households'. 'Hu' here refers to a dwelling, which is characterized by two aspects: for the family life of others and relative isolation from the outside world, the former is a functional feature, and the latter is a place characteristic. Under normal circumstances, collective dormitories, hotels, temporary sheds, etc., should not be recognized as 'households'......"

"Specifically, in this case, the defendant had sex with the victim Wang Xudong in the hotel, and then took away the collected NEI clothes, which happened in the hotel, and according to the law, it does not belong to the category of home robbery at all."

"The third mistake made by the agent ad litem was to ignore that the defendant was a well-known GAY in the circle, and that he had a special habit of collecting nei clothes, which was well known in the GAY community. Therefore, men who have sex with him should understand, acquiesce in his acceptance of nei clothes and collect them. ”

"From the three mistakes of the agent ad litem, we can clearly point out that the defendant in this case has sex with a man does not constitute a crime at all, and taking away the clothes belongs to the overall process of having sex with a man, and cannot be separated from a specific action. Moreover, it was also a consistent custom for the defendant to take away the NEI clothes, and the men with whom he interacted were all acquiescing, and the defendant himself did not and did not need to illegally take possession of the NEI clothes. ”

"Therefore, we demand that the defendant be acquitted and released on the spot!"

Xue Dong's crooked reasoning became more and more vigorous, and a fat face showed a large flush due to strange excitement. Li Renyong saw that Xue Dong was right, and couldn't help nodding slightly, and a smug sneer reappeared on his face, looking at Li Chao and many victims defiantly.

The victims were indignant when they heard this, it was really hateful that there should be such a shameless person, who was guilty under the law, and was still messing around, without the slightest repentance!

Li Chao immediately refuted unceremoniously: "The opposing defender lacks basic legal knowledge. The opposing defender said that our side cited Article 8 of the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Robbery and Snatching" provides for the presumption of guilt by analogy. In particular, we would like to remind the opposing defender that we are not presumption of guilt by analogy, but believe that this provision should be directly applied in this case. ”

"The facts of this case are fully in accordance with the provisions of this article. In the course of the defendant's crime, the first legal relationship was that the defendant violently sexually assaulted 37 male victims, including Wang Xudong, and this legal relationship is a fact, although the law does not stipulate that it is a crime, it is definitely an illegal act. After committing this illegal act, taking advantage of the victim's inability to resist or dare not resist, the defendant then robs the victim's clothing, and the punishment for the previous illegal act and the crime of robbery shall be combined. Therefore, the provisions of Article 8 are fully applicable in this case, rather than reasoning by analogy between the circumstances of this case and Article 8! ”

In addition, the opposing defender is reminded that in the course of his arguments, he also clearly divided the case into two legal relationships, one is that the defendant sexually assaulted the male victim, and the other is that the defendant took away the clothes of others. In other words, the defender himself also knew and admitted that there were two legal relationships in this case. ”

"With regard to home burglary, the opposing defender is requested to draw the attention of the opposing party's defender to the statements of the 27 victims, of which 9 victims accused the defendant of sexually assaulting and robbing the victim in his home or rental house, which is fully in line with the form of home robbery in accordance with article 1 of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Robbery Cases" and the "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Robbery and Robbery". Therefore, the defendant committed a burglary. ”

The opposing defender said that the defendant was a well-known GAY in the circle, so the victim should know his sexual orientation, voluntarily sexually assaulted by him, and voluntarily snatched his clothes from his collection. This is pure bandit logic. The fact that the defendant is GAY does not mean that all the victims are GAY, and all of them were sexually assaulted and robbed of their clothes voluntarily. According to the allegations of the 27 victims, they were completely violently injured and were robbed of their clothes after being injured. The opposing advocate cannot argue against the victim's complaint on the basis of the defendant's sexual orientation. ”

"According to the logic of the other party, the murderer kills someone, because the murderer is a murderer known to everyone, and the deceased should be killed by the murderer voluntarily, and the murderer should not be punished for this. From this, it can be seen how ridiculous the logic of the opposing defender is! ”

"As for the defendant's robbery of the victim's clothing, the victim's lawful property and clothing were immediately out of the victim's control, and the defendant had already committed the crime of robbery. As for the defendant's collection of the nei clothes obtained by the robbery, it was the defendant's subsequent disposal and use of the stolen goods. ”

"Therefore, we believe that the defendant has completed the robbery, and it is a robbery and multiple robberies, and he should be punished heavily and sentenced to death!"

Li Chao expounded from a legal point of view, analyzed it thoroughly, explained the legal relationship clearly and clearly, and formed a complete analysis of the entire facts from a legal point of view, which was interlocking, and pointed out that the defendant Li Renyong was guilty.

Not only the victims, but also the members of the collegial panel listened attentively. After Li Chao finished speaking, the presiding judge nodded lightly without a trace.

With such a sharp and complete debate, it was difficult to refute it, and Xue Dong was silent for a while.

"Does the defendant have any new arguments?" The presiding judge urged.

……

Thank you for the 200 tip of Moonlight 1992, and the 100 tip of Dugua Ermu! Thank you for your support! In the past few days, Qianjun is in his hometown, and he often has no Internet, so he will look for the Internet again tonight, and strive to update another chapter in the evening. Thank you for your support!