"I didn't mean to, I went to the traffic police to steal my car, not to kill people, and the court of first instance sentenced me to death, and I don't accept it......" Mao Dewen kept shouting nervously, and finally he quieted down with the reprimand of the presiding judge and the "help" of the bailiff.

"The appellant's defence counsel issues grounds of appeal." After speaking, the presiding judge looked at the defense bench.

The defender argued that the facts found by the court of first instance were unclear, the characterization was inaccurate, and the sentence was excessive, and the appellant did not constitute the crime of robbery. The appellant secretly entered the traffic police force and prepared to drive away the vehicle owned by him, and he did not have the purpose of robbery, nor did he commit robbery, so he did not constitute the crime of robbery, and his act did not constitute theft, and the appellant's use of violence in the process to cause death or injury should constitute the crime of intentional injury.

The appellant's conduct was not an extremely serious crime and should not be subject to the death penalty for immediate execution, and the court was requested to give the appellant a lenient punishment. Complete. Fang Yi said.

In the following questioning session, the procurator and Fang Yi questioned the appellant separately, but because the appellant had collapsed and his logic was confused, he answered the basic facts of some cases in a scattered manner. Most of the time, the person asking and the person being asked are not at the same frequency at all, which is very uncomfortable.

Since then, the evidence has been presented and cross-examined, and since no new evidence has been submitted by the three parties, the procedure has progressed quickly......

……

"The court investigation is over, and now the court argument is open. Before the debate, the court draws the attention of the prosecution and the defense to the fact that the debate should mainly focus on the determination of the charge, sentencing and other controversial issues.

First, the appellant Mao Dewen made his own defense. The presiding judge said expressionlessly.

Mao Dewen's self-defense is still so elegant, so crazy, tears and no money rush out, he can't wait to hug the chief judge's thigh, shake a big snot, and beg him to let the old man let him go.

With the "help" of the presiding judge and the bailiff, Mao Dewen finally stopped speaking illogically in the midst of sobbing.

"Appellant Mao Dewen's defender speaks." The presiding judge said expressionlessly.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: The defender believes that the appellant Mao Dewen's use of violence to cause death and injury constituted the crime of intentional injury in the process of going to the compound of the traffic police force to secretly drive away the Mercedes-Benz that was seized by the public security traffic management organ in accordance with the law and whose ownership belonged to Mao Dewen.

The court of first instance held that the appellant Mao Dewen's conduct violated Article 269 of the Criminal Law, constituted theft of stolen goods, and caused death by violence on the spot, and should be convicted and punished in accordance with Article 263 of the Criminal Law. Here's why:

1. Appellant Mao Dewen's act of secretly driving away from the compound of the traffic police force that his seized Mercedes-Benz did not constitute theft.

First, Mao Dewen did not have the purpose of unlawful possession.

In this case, Mao Dewen's Mercedes-Benz was seized because he drove a Mercedes-Benz on the road without a driver's license, which violated the provisions of the Road Traffic Management Regulations of the People's Republic of China that 'motor vehicle drivers need to carry their driver's license and driving license when driving a vehicle'.

However, according to Article 9 of the Supplementary Provisions on Traffic Management Penalty Procedures, after the public security traffic management organ temporarily detains the vehicle, it shall return it to the person or the relevant unit except for the vehicle that has been confiscated in accordance with the law.

According to the above provisions, the 'temporary seizure of vehicles' is only an administrative compulsory measure taken by the public security traffic management authority in a short period of time against the illegal or accident vehicles, and does not belong to administrative punishment, nor does it belong to confiscation or confiscation.

Before the decision is made to dispose of the temporarily impounded vehicle, the public security traffic management organ shall only be responsible for the custody of the temporarily impounded vehicle, and shall not enjoy any other rights, and the ownership of the vehicle shall still belong to the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, after Mao Dewen's Mercedes-Benz was seized, the ownership of the car still belonged to Mao Dewen himself.

Second, the appellant Mao Dewen only secretly took his Mercedes-Benz in the courtyard of the traffic police force, and did not steal or damage any other public or private property. Therefore, Mao Dewen's conduct did not constitute theft.

The provisions of article 269 of the Criminal Law should not apply to Mao Dewen's conduct of causing death in the process of secretly driving away his detained Mercedes-Benz car. This is because the application of article 269 of the Criminal Code is premised on the fact that the appellant has committed the offence of theft, fraud or robbery.

In this case, Mao Dewen subjectively did not have the purpose of illegal possession from beginning to end, and objectively did not commit acts of theft, fraud, or robbery, so there is no possibility that his behavior could be transformed into robbery.

2. According to the evidence in the case, Mao Dewen entered the courtyard of the traffic police force on the night of the crime and did not carry any murder weapon. After entering the scene, he took out the spare key of the Mercedes-Benz and prepared to drive the car away, so Mao Dewen's purpose was to drive away the vehicle that was seized.

When the appellant was about to secretly drive away the Mercedes-Benz, he was discovered and stopped by the officer on duty, which the appellant did not expect. In order to drive away the seized Mercedes-Benz as soon as possible, although Mao Dewen used violence against the officers on duty, from the appellant's subjective point of view, his real intention was to prevent the victim from hindering him from secretly driving the Mercedes-Benz.

The appellant, Mao Dewen, did not have the motive to kill, nor did he have the intention to hope or allow the consequences of the victim's death to occur, but Mao Dewen was aware that his actions would have the consequences of harming the victim. Therefore, in the process of secretly driving away his seized Mercedes-Benz, Mao Dewen's act of causing death or injury constituted the crime of intentional injury.

In view of the fact that the appellant Mao Dewen was a first-time offender, the harm to society was not great, and he truthfully confessed after being brought into the case, and his family compensated the victim's family, the defender implored the High Court to change the sentence in accordance with the law and recommended that the appellant be sentenced to life imprisonment. Complete! After Fang Yi finished his defense opinion, he glanced at Mao Dewen in the defendant's seat, who was still sobbing.

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

"Presiding Judge and Judge: We believe that the court of first instance found that the facts were clear, the law was correctly applied, and the sentence was appropriate, and we request that the court reject the appellant's appeal request in accordance with law. Complete. The inspector said.

"The prosecutor may respond to the defender's arguments." After speaking, the presiding judge looked at the prosecutor's bench.

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

According to the second paragraph of Article 91 of the Criminal Law, private property managed, used or transported by state organs, state-owned companies, enterprises, collective enterprises and people's organizations shall be regarded as public property.

The Mercedes-Benz involved in this case is a vehicle seized by the traffic management department in accordance with the law, and it is a private property managed by the state organ in the above provisions, and should be regarded as public property.

The appellant's theft of the seized Mercedes-Benz without permission was theft of public property, and therefore the appellant's actions should be regarded as theft.

Whoever commits the crime of theft in accordance with article 269 of the Criminal Law and uses violence on the spot in order to conceal stolen goods, resist arrest, or destroy criminal evidence, shall be convicted and punished in accordance with article 263 of the Criminal Law.

In summary, we believe that the appellant's act constituted robbery by using violence to cause death in the process of stealing the Mercedes-Benz. Therefore, the facts found by the court of first instance were clear, the law was correctly applied, and the sentence was appropriate. Complete. The prosecutor responded to Fang Yi's opinion in a low voice.

(End of chapter)