In Fang Yi's view, from a moral point of view, on the one hand, he desperately demanded legal arrears for the company, and on the other hand, he owed money and did not pay it back, and he was bankrupt. It is difficult to distinguish between right and wrong in this case.

In fact, there has been such a thing as forced debt since ancient times, and debtors commit suicide everywhere, and it is difficult to find any way to truly alleviate the contradictions between the two sides, and only money can solve thousands of sorrows.

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

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

"There is no new evidence." Tripartite.

……

"The court investigation is over, and now the court argument is open. Before the debate, the court draws the attention of the prosecution and the defense to the fact that the debate should mainly focus on the determination of the charge, sentencing and other controversial issues.

The appellant, Cheng Wu, could defend himself. The presiding judge said.

"I never detained Hua Cheng, nor did I want to hurt him, I just wanted to repay the debt he owed us. If it weren't for the company's real operational difficulties, I wouldn't have been so tight in debt collection, and I wouldn't be able to go home for the Spring Festival......" As he spoke, Cheng Wu's eyes were red and his eyes were a little moist.

"I will now speak by the defender of the appellant Cheng Wu." The presiding judge said.

"The defense argues 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 unlawful detention refers to the act of unlawfully depriving another person of his or her right to physical liberty by illegal detention, confinement or other means.

The evidence provided by the public prosecution could not prove that the appellant Cheng Wu had detained Hua Cheng, nor could it 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 him, but repeatedly encouraged Hua Cheng to go home or go to a friend to raise money.

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

In other words, the act of eating, living and walking together does not reach the level of deprivation of liberty of the victim. The court of first instance found that the appellant's conduct constituted the crime of illegal detention, which was an inaccurate characterization of the case and an improper application of law.

The defender argued that the appellant Cheng Wu constituted the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, which was not enough to constitute the crime of illegal detention, and that his purpose was to recover legal debts, that the harm to society was relatively small, and that he had pleaded guilty and expressed remorse, he requested the court to change the appellant's suspended sentence in accordance with law. Complete. Fang Yi said.

Fang Yi didn't want to, and didn't dare to challenge the IQ of the judges of the Intermediate Court, people are also learning every day, even if he doesn't mention picking quarrels and provoking trouble, there is a high probability that the judge will sentence like this, but the sentencing may not be so friendly, which is not conducive to Cheng Wu, and being smart is mistaken by being smart. It is better to be clear and defend the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, so that the judge can consider it when sentencing.

"It is now up to the Prosecutor to speak." The presiding judge said.

“…… In order to demand the arrears, the appellant Cheng Wu used methods such as eating and living together and following the trip to monitor the victim 24 hours a day, which seriously restricted the victim's freedom and daily life, and then led to the serious consequences of the victim's suicide.

In our view, the court of first instance found that the facts were clear and the law was properly applied, and requested the court to reject the appellant's appeal request in accordance with the law. Complete. Inspector Li said.

"The prosecutor may respond to the defender's arguments." The presiding judge looked up at the prosecutor's bench.

"In response to the defence of the defenders, we hold that both restriction of liberty and deprivation of liberty are prohibited by law, and we believe that the severe restriction of the extension of liberty can be interpreted as deprivation of liberty.

The appellant Cheng Wu used the method of eating, living and accompanying the victim Hua Cheng to collect money for several months, which seriously restricted Hua Cheng's freedom, so we believe that the defendant Cheng Wu constituted the crime of illegal detention. Complete! Inspector Li said.

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

"Based on the prosecutor's defense and response, the defense counsel issued the following defense opinions:

The offence of unlawful detention manifests itself in the form of depriving the victim of his or her freedom of movement. For example, illegal detention, forced confinement, illegal isolation and interrogation, etc., but no matter what the means, they are characterized by illegal deprivation of personal liberty of others. In other words, the crime of unlawful detention can only be found to be the extent of deprivation of liberty of the victim.

Article 37, paragraph 3, of the Constitution provides that 'unlawful detention and other unlawful deprivation or restriction of a citizen's personal liberty are prohibited'.

Paragraph 3 of Article 241 of the Criminal Law stipulates that 'buying abducted and trafficked women and children, unlawfully depriving and restricting their personal liber......ty'

From the above provisions, it can be seen that the relationship between 'deprivation' and 'restriction' is juxtaposed, indicating that the meanings of the two are different. According to the principle of legality of crimes, where the law does not expressly provide for criminal acts, they must not be convicted and sentenced.

No interpretation can go beyond the provisions of the law, still less can it equate restricting or severely restricting the personal liberty of others with depriving them of their personal liberty.

Generally speaking, there are two types of unlawful deprivation of personal liberty: one is the direct application of external force on the victim's body, so that the victim is physically deprived of physical liberty, such as being detained in a certain room and forbidden to go 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 did not reach the level of being controlled and lost his freedom, either physically or psychologically. Therefore, the defense argued that the appellant Cheng Wu's conduct did not constitute the crime of illegal detention.

In addition, the Criminal Law Amendment (VIII) added the act of 'intimidating' others to the provisions of the 1997 Criminal Law on the objective conduct of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble.

The defender believes that Cheng Wu's acts of eating, living, and walking together, as well as carrying out minor violence and intimidation, are acts of picking quarrels and provoking troubles by intimidating others, and should be convicted and punished as the crime of seeking trouble. Here's why:

According to the evidence provided by the prosecutor, the appellant Cheng Wu had been with the victim Hua Cheng for a long time, eating and living together, and Hua Cheng's freedom was restricted and known to many people.

Hua Cheng and his family members have called the police, and after the police came out of the police, they repeatedly asked Cheng Wu to collect debts normally and stop carrying out acts restricting personal freedom, but Cheng Wu did not listen to the dissuasion and still carried out the aforementioned acts, resulting in Hua Cheng committing suicide, and Cheng Wu's behavior has caused some damage to social order.

On the basis of paragraph 3 of article 1 of the "Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Troubles", where the perpetrator carries out acts such as beating, insulting, or intimidating others, or destroying or occupying others' property, due to disputes such as marriage, love, family, neighborhood, or debt, it is generally not found to be 'picking quarrels and provoking troubles', except where after being criticized and stopped by the relevant departments or dealt with and punished, they continue to carry out the conduct described above, disrupting social order.

Based on the above explanation, the defense argued that the appellant Cheng Wu constituted the crime of seeking a gap and causing trouble.

According to Article 8 of the above-mentioned interpretation, 'where the perpetrator admits guilt or repents, actively compensates the victim's losses or obtains the victim's forgiveness, he may be given a lighter punishment; Where the circumstances of the crime are minor, prosecution may not be carried out or criminal punishment may be waived. ’

Although the appellant Cheng Wu did not recognize the charges found by the court of first instance, he had already realized the harm caused to the victim by his actions, and was willing to bear the corresponding legal responsibility, and was willing to repent and rehabilitate, and the appellant Cheng Wu had not received any criminal punishment before, and the defender suggested that the appellant be sentenced to probation! Complete. Fang Yi said.

(End of chapter)