"Appellant Shi Ling's defender speaks." The presiding judge said.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: The defender believes that the appellant Shi Ling, for the purpose of illegal possession, used coercion to forcibly demand 100,000 yuan from the victim, and actually obtained 50,000 yuan, and his conduct did not constitute the crime of robbery, but the crime of extortion. Here's why:

Both robbery and extortion can be used to unlawfully take possession of another person's property by means of threats. However, the immediacy of threats and the imposition of property in the course of robbery are not possessed by extortion.

1. The immediacy of the threat

1. The crime of robbery is the act of the perpetrator directly committing violent means to rob the person being robbed. The threat of extortion can be both face-to-face and non-face-to-face, such as phone calls, WeChat, etc.

In this case, the appellant Shi Ling blackmailed the victim and extorted money on the grounds that the victim had an improper relationship with Jiang Yu.

2. The crime of robbery is aimed at obtaining the victim's property on the spot, so in order to eliminate the victim's possible resistance, the perpetrator must threaten the victim with violence that directly violates the victim's person, and coerce the victim to hand over the property on the spot.

The threat of extortion is mostly to threaten the victim by destroying people's reputations and revealing their privacy. Even if there is a threat of violence, the threat of violence is generally not directed against the victim, but against the victim's relatives and friends, so as to achieve the purpose of coercing the victim. The threat or coercion of extortion is not immediate, but generally threatens the victim to commit an act at some point in the future.

In this case, the appellant did not exert physical violence against the victim in the course of extorting money. Moreover, the evidence in the case shows that it was the victim himself who was afraid that the derailment would be made public by the appellee, so he proposed to give the appellant a certain amount of financial compensation.

3. The threat of robbery is imminent in its implementation, and the victim has no time to consider or choose other than to deliver the property on the spot. However, the threat and coercion of the crime of extortion are not as urgent as the crime of robbery, and the victim still has a certain amount of room for consideration and choice in deciding whether or not to deliver the property.

In this case, the victim offered to pay money to the appellant to settle the derailment, and the appellant agreed to the victim's suggestion, and the two parties also discussed how much to pay, which shows that the appellant's extortion of money was not urgent.

2. The immediacy of obtaining money

The immediacy of obtaining money is also an important distinction between the two types of criminal acts. In the crime of robbery, the perpetrator's conduct, highlighting the word 'robbery', can only be to obtain money on the spot, and the amount of money and property robbed is random, which may be one yuan or two yuan, or one hundred or two hundred.

In the course of the crime of extortion, the perpetrator generally obtains the money after the fact, and there is often a certain time gap between the extortion and the acquisition of the money, and before the extortion is carried out, the perpetrator will have a certain estimate of the amount of money extorted.

In this case, the appellant did not obtain the money on the spot, and the two parties negotiated the amount of money extorted, which shows that the appellant did not have the intention of robbing.

In summary, the defender argued that the appellant's conduct did not constitute the crime of robbery, but the crime of extortion. In view of the fact that the victim was at fault for the occurrence of the case and the appellant showed remorse, the defender suggested that the court change the appellant's suspended sentence. Complete. Fang Yi said.

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

"Presiding Judge and Judge: We believe that the appellant's use of violent means to rob money and property for the purpose of illegal possession constitutes the crime of robbery. The court of first instance found that the facts were clear and the law was correctly applied, and requested the court to reject the appellant's appeal request in accordance with the law. The inspector said.

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

"Okay, Presiding Judge. In response to the defender's defense, we mainly make the following points:

In this case, the appellant followed and broke into the room of his wife and the victim in the hotel, witnessed his wife with the victim, and then violently beat the victim.

Under the appellant's violent coercion, the victim was forced to agree to pay the appellant 100,000 yuan in compensation. The appellant's conduct met the constitutive elements of the crime of robbery and should be convicted of robbery. Complete. The inspector said.

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

"Based on the procurator's defense opinions and responses, the defender issues the following defense opinions:

According to the defender, after the appellant broke into the hotel room, he saw his wife cheating on the victim and then committed violence against the victim.

In response to the appellant's violent acts, the defense counsel argued that it should be understood as Shi Ling's simple act of injury based on momentary anger, not violence for the purpose of robbery, which is also in line with common sense. It is not possible to simply associate violence with subsequent extortion.

After that, in order to avoid the scandal being made public, and in order to get out as soon as possible, the victim offered to compensate Shi Ling with money to end the matter. At this time, Shi Ling had the intention of taking the opportunity to extort his money.

The victim had the intention of 'destroying the wealth and eliminating the disaster', and the appellant had the purpose of 'taking the opportunity to extort', and the two parties hit it off, so the appellant's extortion of money was caused by the matter. Shi Ling's solicitation of the victim's money is an opportunity to blackmail.

To sum up, although Shi Ling committed violent acts in this case, his method of extorting money was not to use violence or threaten violence, but to extort money when the victim was derailing with Jiang Yu, and not all the money obtained was obtained on the spot, so it did not meet the composition of the crime of robbery. shall be convicted and punished as the crime of extortion. Complete. Fang Yi said.

……

At the end of the trial, after deliberation by the collegial panel, the presiding judge announced the verdict in court.

The collegial panel held that the appellant, Shi Ling, used threats and coercion to forcibly demand 100,000 yuan from others for the purpose of illegal possession, but actually demanded 50,000 yuan. His actions have constituted the crime of extortion, and the amount is huge.

The original verdict was inappropriate in convicting appellant Shi Ling for robbery and should have been commuted. The final judgment was reversed: 1. Revoke the first-instance criminal judgment of the district people's court in this case; 2. The appellant, Shi Ling, was convicted of extortion and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

The sentence was commuted from 12 years to 5 years, although Shi Ling was still unhappy in his heart, but he could only accept it, after the sentence was announced, he thought about how to reduce his sentence in prison in the future and get out of prison as soon as possible.

As for his wife Jiang Yu, as early as when he was sentenced to 12 years in prison by the court of first instance, Jiang Yu filed for divorce through his lawyer. She can't live in the Shi family anymore, Shi Ling was sentenced because of her, not only the Shi family can't tolerate her, but her mother's family is also extremely dissatisfied with her, because many of her mother's family rely on the Shi family to eat.

Jiang Yu is now Zhu Bajie looking in the mirror, not a person inside and out.

(End of chapter)