"The facts of this case have been investigated, the court investigation has been completed, and the court arguments are now begining. Court debates revolve around disputed facts that have not been certified by the court and how the law should be applied based on the facts.

The prosecutor will speak first. The presiding judge said.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: The prosecutor believes that the defendant Sun Shengli illegally printed a large number of bath tickets and sold them in the society in order to obtain illegal benefits, and his behavior seriously disrupted the order of the local market economy and caused certain losses to the operation of the county hotel.

In addition, the bath ticket forged by the defendant had a certain value and was a valuable ticket. The defendant's conduct violated two crimes at the same time, which is an imaginary joint offense, and should be convicted and punished as the crime of illegal business operation as one of the felonies.

Defendant Sun Shengli illegally printed a large number of bath tickets, which met the circumstances of 'serious circumstances' in the crime of illegal business operation. In view of the fact that Sun Shengli had a good attitude in admitting guilt and showed a certain degree of remorse after being brought to justice, it is recommended that he be sentenced to one year and six months imprisonment and fined 20,000 yuan. Complete. The inspector said.

"Defendant Sun Shengli defended himself." The presiding judge said.

"I plead guilty and accept punishment, and ask the judge to give a lenient punishment, I really didn't sell a few bath tickets......" Sun Shengli felt that the sentence recommended by the prosecutor was a bit long, and hoped that the court could open up the net to sentence less time and fine less.

"Defendant Sun Shengli's defender, expressing his defense opinions." The presiding judge looked at Fang Yi.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: The defender believes that the evidence in the case cannot prove that the defendant Sun Shengli's conduct seriously disrupted the order of the local market economy, and that his conduct does not constitute the crime of illegal business operation, but should be punished in accordance with the crime of forging valuable documents. Here's why:

1. Bathing tickets belong to 'other valuable tickets'

Article 227 of the Criminal Law stipulates that the crime of forging or reselling forged tickets, ferry tickets, postage stamps or other valuable tickets, where the amount is relatively large, constitutes the crime of forging valuable tickets.

The term 'other valuable tickets' in the above provisions shall be valuable tickets with the same attributes as tickets, ferry tickets, postage stamps, etc., which shall be issued and managed by the relevant departments in a unified manner, and the ticket holder shall have the right to request the corresponding departments to provide certain service tickets, such as bus tickets, subway tickets, etc.

These tickets all have common characteristics: first, they have a certain face value; second, it has certain economic benefits for the holder; Third, it is public, that is, it is effective for unspecified people in a certain space. Fourth, it is embodied in the provision or receipt of certain services, and there is a clear legal relationship between the two parties.

In this case, the victim's county hotel was a business unit established in accordance with the law, and its business scope included bathing services, and it had the right to print bathing tickets and sell them within a certain range. The bath ticket printed by the hotel is a written voucher with a definite denomination approved by the local price department and used in the local society.

Therefore, bathing tickets, like train tickets, ferry tickets, and postage stamps, have the characteristics of 'other valuable tickets' as provided for in article 227 of the Criminal Law, and the defendant Sun Shengli forged the bathing tickets for the bath, constituting the crime of forging valuable tickets.

2. The defendant forged a large amount of bathing tickets

At present, the Criminal Law and judicial interpretations do not clearly stipulate that the 'relatively large amount' provided for in the first paragraph of Article 227 is expressly provided.

The first paragraph of Article 227 of the Criminal Law juxtaposes the act of 'forging other valuable tickets' with the act of reselling tickets, so the defender believes that the social harm of the act of forging other valuable tickets and the act of reselling tickets should be equivalent to a certain extent. Therefore, we can refer to the relevant judicial interpretations on ticket scalping and the criteria for filing cases for forging other valuable tickets. The details are as follows:

Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Trial of Criminal Cases of Ticket Reselling (Fa Shi [1999] No. 17) stipulates that ......reselling tickets at a high price, changing the price, or increasing the price in disguise, or reselling the signature number of seats, sleepers, and ticket vouchers, where the face value is more than 5,000 yuan, constitutes "serious circumstances of ticket reselling" as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 227 of the Criminal Law.

Article 29 of the Provisions on the Standards for Filing and Prosecution of Criminal Cases under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs (I) (promulgated in June 2008) promulgated by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security stipulates that anyone who forges or resells other valuable documents with a cumulative value of more than 5,000 yuan shall be prosecuted.

The evidence in the case shows that the face value of the bathing tickets forged by the defendant Sun Shengli in this case totaled 15,000 yuan, which should be found to be a 'relatively large amount'. Therefore, defendant Sun Shengli's conduct should constitute the crime of forging valuable documents.

In view of the fact that the defendant Sun Shengli had a good attitude in admitting guilt after being brought into the case, had a certain degree of remorse, and was a first-time offender, the defender recommended that the defendant Sun Shengli be sentenced to five months of criminal detention. Complete. Fang Yi said.

Previously, when Fang Yi communicated with the prosecutor about the case, the opinions of the two parties on the crime of forging valuable documents were the same, but Fang Yi believed that Sun Shengli's behavior did not constitute imaginary competition. Therefore, Fang Yi believes that it is necessary to work the crime of forging valuable tickets, analyze the problem thoroughly, and explain it to the judges of the collegial panel.

Fang Yi believes that even if he does not mention the crime of forging valuable documents, the judges will think in this regard, because the prosecutor has already mentioned the concept of imaginary co-offenders in the relevant indictment documents.

In addition, Sun Shengli has been detained for more than three months so far, and Fang Yi has recommended that Sun Shengli be sentenced to five months of detention, giving the court time to issue a verdict.

……

“…… The collegial panel has deliberated and formed a verdict in this case. 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:

Defendant Sun Shengli used illegal means to forge valuable tickets, and the amount was relatively large, and his conduct constituted the crime of forging valuable tickets.

The facts of the crime against Sun Shengli by the public prosecution are clear, and the evidence is credible and sufficient, but the law was wrongly applied, and Sun Shengli did not constitute the crime of illegal business operation.

In view of the fact that defendant Sun Shengli had a good attitude in admitting guilt after being brought into the case, and had a certain degree of remorse, he may be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. In accordance with the provisions of Article 227, Paragraph 1, Article 72, and Article 73, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

Defendant Sun Shengli was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended for one year, and fined 15,000 yuan. The presiding judge pronounced the verdict.

Although the collegial panel did not adopt Fang Yi's sentencing recommendation, it adopted Fang Yi's defense opinion on conviction and sentenced Sun Shengli to a one-year suspended sentence.

No longer having to squat in the detention center is a great thing for Sun Shengli. It's just that he has no money in his pocket, and Sun Rongrong has to help solve the fine. But Sun Rongrong felt that the value of the money, her brother's freedom was far more important than money, although her brother was an indisputable thing.

After the trial, Sun Rongrong's family invited Fang Yi and Zhou Ying to have a meal in the county seat to show their gratitude.

(End of chapter)