"Second, there was a commingling of property between the two in the course of their cohabitation. According to the evidence provided by the public prosecution, during the period of cohabitation, Zhao Xiaojie transferred a total of 1.467 million yuan in salary income to Zhou Yingqi, and the public prosecution did not include this part of the amount in the amount of the crime, which also shows that the public prosecution recognized the commingling of the property of the two.

Third, the defendant Zhou Yingqi sought benefits for Zhao Xiaojie and Zhao Xiaojie sent money to Zhou Yingqi, and it cannot be ruled out that the voluntary contribution driven by emotional factors cannot be ruled out.

According to Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law, 'credible and sufficient evidence' requires 'the synthesis of all the evidence in the case and the elimination of reasonable doubt as to the ascertained facts'.

The so-called 'reasonable doubt' must not be general or vague, but should be specific, based on the judgment standards and rules of thumb of ordinary people, and based on the existing evidence to judge legal facts, if it is believed that there is a possibility of other outcomes, and it is sufficient to shake the basis of the determination of facts, it constitutes reasonable doubt.

In this case, Zhou and Zhao had the will and emotional basis to reorganize their families, and in this case, it is normal for one party to report information and mediate with the relevant leaders for the other party in terms of job promotion and accountability.

According to the confessions of Zhao Xiaojie and Zhou Yingqi and the testimony of witnesses, it can be seen that the financial exchanges between Zhou and Zhao were not only based on the idea of living together in the future, but also in order to please and win the trust of the other party, or to give each other moral compensation because they could not get married.

Assuming that Zhou Yingqi and Zhao Xiaojie eventually become husband and wife, the financial exchanges between the two parties will become the joint property of the two, and the two will become a real community of interests, and there will be no room for power and money transactions.

The evidence in the case shows that the two subjectively never regarded it as a transaction, but as a voluntary contribution driven by emotional factors.

Therefore, there is no correspondence between Zhou Yingqi's behavior of accepting money from her lover (Zhao Xiaojie) and her lover's (Zhao Xiaojie's) act of soliciting bribes, and the available evidence cannot prove that Zhou Yingqi solicited bribes. The existing chain of evidence does not lead to a single conclusion. The money received by Chow should not be characterized as bribery.

2. Defendant Zhou Yingqi's acceptance of 300,000 yuan from Jiayue Company should not be found to be a bribe.

According to article 388 of the Criminal Law, a state functionary who takes advantage of his or her authority or position to seek improper benefits for the trustee through the conduct of other state functionaries in his or her official position, solicits or accepts property from the trustee, shall be punished as accepting bribes.

In this case, Zhou Yingqi only recommended Jiayue Company to a third-party private technology company, and the recommendation was also based on Zhao Xiaojie's plea and the existence of a special relationship between the two parties.

Moreover, the third-party technology company also cooperated with Jiayue Company to conduct business after comprehensively considering its strength, and was not affected by Zhou Yingqi's authority, and there was no improper interest relationship between the two parties.

To sum up, although the defendant Zhou Yingqi had violated the rules, his acceptance of money from Zhao Xiaojie and Jiayue Company was not a bribe. Complete. Fang Yi said.

Regarding the characterization of the 300,000 yuan given by Jiayue Company, Fang Yi deliberately shifted the judge's attention to the relationship between Zhou Yingqi and the technology company, which was actually a smoke bomb he deliberately put off. He wanted to lead the judge by the nose. As for whether the judge is fooled or not, it is not up to him to influence.

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

"Presiding Judge and Judge: Regarding the defender's defense opinions, we mainly express the following two views:

1. The special relationship between Zhou Yingqi and Zhao Xiaojie should not be an obstacle to the determination that Zhou Yingqi accepted bribes.

Judging from the whole case, the two are suspected of using a special relationship to cover up bribery and bribery, and it cannot be ruled out that the two entered into an offensive and defensive alliance before the case occurred because of their special relationship. Therefore, all the money received by Zhou Yingqi should be recognized as bribes.

2. The 300,000 yuan received by Zhou Yingqi from Jiayue Company should be characterized as bribes

According to the Minutes of the National Symposium on the Trial of Economic Crime Cases by Courts ([2003] No. 167), the "facilitation conditions formed by the use of one's authority or position" as provided for in Article 388 of the Criminal Law refers to the fact that although there is no subordinate or restraining relationship between the actor and the GJ staff member used by him, the actor has used his or her authority or position to produce influence and certain work contacts, such as between GJ staff of different departments within the company, Between GJ staff members who are not subordinate or constrained by subordinate or subordinate units, and between GJ staff members of different units who have a working relationship, etc.

Specifically, in this case, the third-party technology company was the supplier of the appellant Zhou Yingqi's company, and Zhou Yingqi, as the deputy general manager of the company, had a certain influence on the selection and employment of the supplier, so there was a binding relationship between the two parties.

Under such circumstances, it cannot be determined that Zhou Yingqi's company and the technology company are equal civil subjects based on the formal requirements, and in essence, Zhou Yingqi's company and herself have restrictions and influences on the third-party technology company. In addition, from the point of view that Zhou Yingqi recommended Jiayue Company to the general assistant of a technology company, the two sides quickly reached a business cooperation, which also confirms Zhou Yingqi's influence.

It can be seen that the cooperation between Jiayue Company and the technology company took advantage of Zhou Yingqi's position, and Zhou Yingqi's behavior of accepting money from the two should be found to be bribery. Complete! The inspector said.

……

At the end of the trial, the presiding judge announced a 10-minute adjournment and a verdict was made later. Zhou Yingqi felt that Fang Yi's defense was very good, and as for how the second instance would be judged, he could only do his best to obey the fate of heaven.

Zhou Yingqi waited anxiously, just like waiting for his beloved to come to the door, afraid that he would come, afraid that he would not come, and even more afraid that he would come.

Ten minutes passed quickly, and the three judges of the collegial panel walked into the courtroom.

“…… Now the trial continues, and the case has been deliberated by the collegial panel and a judgment has been formed. In response to the opinions of the prosecution and defense, combined with the focus of the dispute in this case, and based on the facts and evidence of this case, this court makes the following comments:

Based on the facts, nature, and circumstances of Zhou Yingqi's crime, and the degree of harm to society, the court of first instance made a judgment in accordance with law that the facts were clear, the evidence was credible and sufficient, the sentencing was appropriate, and the trial procedures were lawful.

This court held that Zhou Yingqi's acceptance of 300,000 yuan from Jiayue Company constituted the crime of accepting bribes. Therefore, the procuratorate's protest opinion was adopted. The procuratorate's other procuratorial counter-appeal opinions are not to be adopted. The verdict reads as follows:

1. Items 1 and 3 of the Intermediate People's Court's first-instance criminal judgment are upheld;

2. Item 2 of the revocation of the intermediate people's court's first-instance criminal judgment;

3. Of the 2.8 million yuan seized in the case, 300,000 yuan was confiscated as unlawful gains, 300,000 yuan was merged into Zhou Yingqi's fine and sentence, and the remaining money was returned to Zhou Yingqi. The presiding judge pronounced the verdict.

(End of chapter)