Defendant Zhao Sixi and his defender both recognized the facts of the crime and the charges, and proposed that defendant Zhao Sixi had a good attitude in admitting guilt after being brought into the case, and recommended that the court give a lighter punishment.

Defendant Wu Meifeng insisted that she had no intention of kidnapping, and that she was deceived by Zhao Sixi to help.

"Defendant Wu Meifeng's defender, expressing his defense opinions." The presiding judge said.

"Presiding Judge, Judge: The defender believes that although defendant Wu Meifeng and defendant Zhao Sixi jointly committed the act of kidnapping the victim Chen Yue, there is no joint crime between defendant Wu Meifeng and Zhao Sixi for the following reasons:

Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Criminal Law clearly stipulates that a joint crime refers to a joint intentional crime committed by two or more persons. To establish a joint crime, three conditions must be met at the same time:

The first condition is that the subject of the crime must be two or more persons who have reached the age of criminal responsibility and have the capacity for criminal responsibility.

The second condition is that the subject of the crime has a common criminal intent.

The third condition is that the subject of the crime has a common criminal act.

In this case, the two defendants have reached the age of criminal responsibility and have the capacity for criminal responsibility, both of which meet the first condition mentioned above.

The second condition, joint criminal intent, is a subjective element of constituting a joint crime, and several persons who lack the intent to commit a joint crime commit the same crime against the same target at the same time are only committing the same crime at the same time, not jointly committing the crime.

In a joint crime, when two people simultaneously carry out a criminal act of supporting or assisting each other against the same target, if the content of the criminal intent of the two parties is different and there is no common criminal intent, it cannot constitute a joint crime.

In this case, the defendant Zhao Sixi lied to the defendant Wu Meifeng that someone owed him a debt and did not pay it, and persuaded Wu Meifeng to bring his daughter and force her to repay the debt.

Wu Meifeng mistakenly believed that Zhao Sixi kidnapped the victim Chen Yue to collect debts, but did not know that Zhao Sixi's real purpose was to extort property.

Although Wu Meifeng and Zhao Sixi jointly committed the criminal act of kidnapping the victim Chen Yue (meeting the third condition of a joint crime), because they subjectively believed that the kidnapping of Chen Yue was to collect debts from their father, the content of their criminal intent was completely different from that of the defendant Zhao Sixi, and the two defendants did not have a common criminal intent, so the two did not constitute a joint crime of kidnapping, and could only be convicted and sentenced separately according to the crimes they constituted.

In this case, the defendant Wu Meifeng should have committed the crime of illegal detention. The defense counsel recommended that the defendant Wu Meifeng be given a suspended sentence. Complete. Fang Yi said.

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

"Our view on the defender's defense is as follows:

In this case, although the defendant Zhao Sixi had the intention of deceiving the defendant Wu Meifeng, the debt mentioned by Zhao Sixi was not a real debt, but a fictitious debt.

Whether it is the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 238 of the Criminal Law or the provisions on illegal debts in the previous judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court, the existence of real debts is required, and the debts in this case are fictitious, and Wu Meifeng's use of fictitious debts for the purpose of the crime does not comply with the provisions of the appellate law, so we believe that the defendant Wu Meifeng's conduct constitutes the crime of kidnapping and is an accessory. Complete. The inspector said.

"The defender can respond to the prosecutor's comments." The presiding judge said.

"In response to the prosecutor's defense opinions and responses, the defense counsel issued the following defense opinions:

Although there is actually no legal creditor-debtor relationship between the defendant Zhao Sixi and the victim's father, Chen Shouyi, in this case, there is no creditor-debtor relationship that is not protected by law, such as usury and gambling debts.

However, Wu Meifeng did not know about being deceived and helped Zhao Sixi to carry out the kidnapping for the purpose of collecting debts, and after committing the crime, Zhao Sixi did not tell Wu Meifeng of her true purpose, and Wu Meifeng subjectively only had the intention of illegal detention, not the intention of kidnapping, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 238 of the Criminal Law, Wu Meifeng's conduct met the characteristics of the crime of illegal detention in the form of debt collection. Wu Meifeng should be guilty of illegal detention. Complete. Fang Yi said.

……

At the end of the trial, the presiding judge pronounced the verdict in court.

The collegial panel held that the defendant Zhao Sixi kidnapped others for the purpose of extorting property, and after committing the kidnapping, he made a phone call to extort property, and his conduct constituted the crime of kidnapping.

Defendant Wu Meifeng believed the lie that defendant Zhao Sixi had taken hostages in order to collect debts, and under the control of this understanding, assisted Zhao Sixi in illegally detaining children, and her conduct constituted the crime of illegal detention.

The facts of the public prosecution's accusation that Zhao Sixi committed the crime of kidnapping are clear, the evidence is credible and sufficient, and the charges are correct, and they are supported; He accused Wu Meifeng of committing the crime of kidnapping, and because Wu Meifeng subjectively had no intention or purpose of kidnapping and extorting property, the charges against him were inaccurate and should be corrected.

Zhao Sixi's defender proposed that Zhao Sixi had a good attitude in admitting guilt after being brought into the case, and that he could be given a lighter punishment. After investigation, although Zhao Sixi was able to truthfully confess the facts of his crime after he was brought into the case, it was not enough to give him a lighter punishment based on the means, consequences, and social impact of his crime.

Defendant Wu Meifeng argued that she had no intention of kidnapping and her defender proposed that Wu Meifeng's actions were carried out under the circumstances of being deceived, that her subjective malice was small, that she had a good attitude in admitting guilt after being brought into the case, and that she showed remorse, so she could be given a lighter punishment.

After investigation, Wu Meifeng committed the crime under the deliberate control of Zhao Sixi who falsely claimed to be taking hostages and collecting debts, and after committing the crime, Zhao Sixi did not tell Wu Meifeng his true purpose, and Wu Meifeng subjectively only had the intention of illegal detention, not the intention of kidnapping, so her defense and defense opinions were established and adopted.

Finally, the Intermediate People's Court ruled that: 1. Defendant Zhao Sixi committed the crime of kidnapping and was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of property. 2. Defendant Wu Meifeng committed the crime of illegal detention and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.

After the verdict was announced, Zhao Sixi's body weakened, and the whole person collapsed. The bailiffs on both sides were quick and immediately stretched out their arms to stand him up.

Wu Meifeng's expectation was to be sentenced to ten years in prison, and in the end she was sentenced to three years, deducting the time she was detained before, and the time she really needed to serve her sentence was about two years and ten months. After the dust settled, she was a lot lighter.

Because Zhao Sixi's family had been negotiating compensation with the victim's family after the case and during the trial, the Zhao family hoped that the Chen family would issue a letter of understanding. However, the Chen family hated Zhao Sixi, felt that the Zhao family had too little money, and refused to issue a letter of understanding, and the two families had been talking about exchanging money for a letter of understanding, so the Chen family did not file a civil lawsuit attached to the criminal case.

After the verdict was announced, Zhao Sixi was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the Zhao family had no intention of compensation. The Chen family felt that they had been deceived, so they filed a civil lawsuit.

In the end, the court ordered Zhao Sixi and Wu Meifeng to compensate the Chen family for economic losses of 3,892 yuan (including 3,500 yuan for the victim Chen Yue's medical expenses, and 392 yuan for nursing expenses and lost work expenses).

(End of chapter)