"Now that the evidence is presented and cross-examined, do the prosecutors, defenders, and defendants have new evidence to submit?" The presiding judge asked.

"Nope." Tripartite.

"Now the prosecutor will present the evidence." The presiding judge said.

Fang Yi had already read the catalogue of evidence and relevant evidence submitted by the procurator, and he accepted all the evidence in the case, and the defendant had no objection to the evidence.

……

"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 Tang Renguo and the victim Tang Ming are father and son, and the object of the defendant's robbery is the joint family property of Tang Ming and his wife.

According to article 7 of the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Robbery and Snatching", where the property of family members or close relatives is obtained by means of violence, coercion or other means for personal use, it is generally not convicted and punished as the crime of robbery, and where other crimes are constituted, it is to be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law.

In the course of robbing his own money and property, the defendant Tang Renguo committed murder with a weapon, but failed to succeed due to reasons other than his will, and his conduct constituted the crime of intentional homicide (attempt).

In view of the defendant's attempted homicide, which caused serious injuries and caused heavy economic losses to the victim, we recommend that the defendant be sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve. Complete. After the inspector finished speaking, he put down the A4 paper in his hand.

Tang Ming, who was sitting in the auditorium, did not feel particularly relieved after listening to the prosecutor's speech, and the joy in his eyes only lasted for a moment, and after the joy, there was an inexplicable heaviness in his heart.

Jia Zongxia's reaction was different from his, after listening to the prosecutor's sentencing recommendation, her heart twitched suddenly, her eyes were full of worry, her hands were tightly clutched on the armrests of the chair, and her body trembled slightly.

According to the trial procedure, the next step was the defendant's self-defense, the defendant Tang Renguo did not cry anymore, his self-defense was more like a narrative, and he admitted everything he had done, but he believed that when he was arrested, he went to the police station to surrender and begged the court for lenient punishment.

"The defendant's defender gives his defense opinion." The presiding judge looked at Fang Yi.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: The defender believes that defendant Tang Renguo's conduct does not constitute the crime of intentional homicide, but the crime of robbery. Here's why:

1. Defendant Tang Renguo's robbery of common family property constitutes the crime of robbery

According to the second paragraph of Article 7 of the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Robbery and Snatching" (Fa Fa [2005] No. 8), a person who instigates or joins others to use violence, coercion or other means to rob family members or close relatives may be convicted and punished for the crime of robbery.

According to the Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the Issue of How to Convict Cases of Intentional Homicide in the Process of Robbery (Fa Shi [2001] No. 16), if the perpetrator premeditates intentional homicide in order to steal property, or intentionally kills in order to subdue the victim's resistance in the process of robbing property, it is to be convicted and punished as the crime of robbery. Where, after committing robbery, the perpetrator intentionally kills people in order to silence his mouth, he is to be convicted of the crimes of robbery and intentional homicide, and punishment for multiple crimes is to be combined.

The defense argued that Tang Renguo was 18 years old, an adult, and had the ability to live independently, but because the victim and the defendant had not separated their family property, and Tang Renguo, as a family member living with Tang Ming, had also contributed to the family income, the family property should be recognized as the joint property of the defendant Tang Renguo and his parents. It should not be recognized as the joint property of Tang Ming and his wife.

In this case, the defendant Tang Renguo and Jiang Sanfu (Huang Mao) went to the supermarket run by his family to make money, and in the process of committing the money (robbery), the defendant seriously injured the victim, and his ultimate goal was to make money.

It can be seen from the defendant's precedent to going to his own supermarket to collect money and later seriously injuring the victim, before and after robbing the family's common money, it can be seen that the defendant's purpose was to rob his own supermarket, not to kill people, and that the assault on the victim was only to facilitate the robbery.

The defendant's conduct complied with the provisions of Article 7 of the "Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the Issue of How to Convict Cases of Intentional Homicide in the Process of Robbery" and the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Robbery and Robbery", and this case should be characterized as a crime of robbery.

2. Defendant Tang Renguo's conduct of entering the rest room of a supermarket to rob shall not be found to be 'burglary'.

According to Article 1 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Robbery and Snatching, 'household' refers to a dwelling, which is characterized by two aspects: for the family life of others and relative isolation from the outside world, with the former being a functional feature and the latter being a place characteristic.

According to article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's "Guiding Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Robbery", where the perpetrator forcibly enters the house to rob during non-business hours or fraudulently opens the door to rob in the name of shopping, it shall be found to be 'home robbery' in a place where part of the time is engaged in business and part of the time is used for daily life.

Where the perpetrator enters the living place to commit robbery in a venue that is partly used for business and partly for daily life, and there is clear separation between them, it shall be found to be a 'home robbery'.

If there is no clear separation between venues, and the perpetrator enters during business hours to commit robbery, it is not to be found to be 'home robbery', but where robbery is carried out outside of business hours, it should be found to be 'home robbery'.

In this case, the defendant Tang Renguo entered the rest room of his supermarket in the early morning to commit a robbery, which seems to meet the constitutive characteristics of 'home robbery' in the above-mentioned guiding opinions, but judging from the photos of the crime scene provided by the prosecutor, the rest room of the small supermarket is actually not a living area, but only a single bed is temporarily set up for the supermarket owner Tang Ming to rest, and most of the area is occupied by goods, which is actually a warehouse and a part of the supermarket. Therefore, this case is not a burglary.

In addition, Tang Renguo and Tang Ming are family members living together, and whether or not they entered their father Tang Ming's resting place with Tang Ming's consent, it was not an illegal trespass.

From the perspective of traditional ethics and morality, regardless of whether the children are minors or live separately from their parents, it is normal for children to enter their parents' bedrooms or residences, and it does not constitute the crime of trespassing into the home.

Therefore, the robbery carried out by the defendant Tang Renguo when he entered the rest room of the supermarket and committed against the victim Tang Ming cannot be found to be 'home robbery'.

3. The defendant has circumstances of voluntary surrender.

The defendant in this case, Tang Renguo, took the initiative to come to the public security organ after committing the crime, and truthfully confessed the main facts of his crime after being interrogated, so Tang Renguo's conduct constituted voluntary surrender.

To sum up, on the day of the incident, the defendant Tang Renguo and others came to his supermarket in order to make money (robbery), and then refused to ask for money, got into a verbal altercation with the victim Tang Ming, seriously injured the victim, and then fled the scene after robbing 53,800 yuan in cash.

From beginning to end, the defendant's criminal purpose was only one, that is, to make money, and there was no murderous purpose when he returned home, and the existing evidence in the case could not prove that the defendant had the purpose of killing, so the defender held that the defendant constituted the crime of robbery, not the crime of intentional homicide.

In view of the fact that the defendant did show remorse and voluntarily surrendered, and that the money and property robbed belonged to the common property of the family, and the harm to society was relatively small, the defender suggested that the court sentence the defendant to 10 years imprisonment. Complete. Fang Yi expressed his defense opinion.