"Important! Very important! Because Xu Chungen told me that the facts of the case will affect the court's sentencing of him. If the facts of this case are confirmed to be true, then it is very likely that the sentence of the defendant Xu Chungen will be reduced to less than three years in prison; If this fact is false, Xu Chungen's sentence will most likely be between three and ten years in prison.

My client's vital personal interests are at stake, and as a defense lawyer, I feel that I have a responsibility and an obligation to verify the relevant circumstances. Guo Wen said bluntly.

"After you saw the witnesses, which of the two of you was the first to talk about the situation on the night of the crime?" Fang Yi then asked.

"It was Shi Dali who took the initiative to tell me. At that time, after I went to Xu's house, I asked Shi Dali what he was doing at the time of the incident, and he told me that he was drinking with Xu Chungen, and Xu Chungen didn't go home until late.

Later, I asked him if he was willing to testify in the Xu Chungen theft case and told the judge what he had just said, and he said that there was no problem. Then I made a note for him. It's as simple as that. Guo Wenzhi said.

In the eyes of the prosecutor, the conversation just now was more like Fang Yi and Guo Wenzhi acting, an extremely realistic play, a pair of drama spirits.

"Presiding judge, the defender has finished asking." Fang Yi looked at the presiding judge.

"Did the prosecutor, the defender, and the appellant submit any new evidence?" The presiding judge asked.

"Nope!" Tripartite equalization.

……

"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.

The appellant is invited to defend himself. The presiding judge said.

Before the trial, Fang Yi went to meet Guo Wenzhi, so the latter was very familiar with Fang Yi's defense plan, and Guo Wenzhi's self-defense opinions were all based on the defense plan that Fang Yi had told him before.

"Now it is up to the appellant Guo Wenzhi's defender to speak." The presiding judge said routinely.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: The defender believes that appellant Guo Wenzhi does not constitute the crime of obstructing testimony, for the following specific reasons:

Paragraph 2 of Article 306 of the Criminal Law on the crime of obstructing testimony stipulates that the witness testimony or other evidence provided, presented, or cited by the defender is untrue and is not intentionally fabricated, and is not considered to be fabricated evidence.

In the Xu Chungen theft case, the appellant Guo Wenzhi, as the defense lawyer, did cite the witness testimony that was inaccurate, but the appellant did not have any intention on the subject.

The defender believes that the 'intention' in the second paragraph of Article 306 of the Criminal Law should be limited to direct intent, that is, the defender should know that his obstruction of testimony will hinder the normal conduct of criminal proceedings, and actively pursue such a result. In addition, the defender should not be found to have the intention to obstruct the criminal proceedings.

In this case, it can be seen from the following two aspects that the appellant subjectively did not have the intention to obstruct the criminal proceedings:

First, the appellant's search for witnesses to inquire about the relevant facts of the case was out of the duty and obligation of the defender, and it was a verification of the facts of the case as Xu Chungen had said.

In this case, the appellant Guo Wenzhi submitted to the court the investigation record of Shi Dali that he had produced, which objectively did obstruct the normal trial activities of Xu Chungen's theft case (this is an objective fact and cannot be circumvented), but Guo Wenzhi did not subjectively have the direct intention to obstruct the trial activities.

Moreover, judging from the available evidence in this case, when Xu Chungen retracted his confession in the first instance, there was no evidence to prove that the defender Guo Wenzhi knew or should have known that Xu Chungen's confession statement about his last theft was false, and there was no evidence to prove that Guo Wenzhi knew that Xu Chungen and Shi Dali did not drink together on the night of the crime.

In other words, Guo Wenzhi did not know and could not have known that Xu Chungen's confession statement was contrary to the facts. There is also insufficient evidence to prove that when the appellant Guo Wenzhi took evidence from the witness Shi Dali, Guo Wenzhi knew or should have known that Shi Dali's testimony was false testimony.

Second, judging from the appellant Guo Wenzhi's conduct, there is no possibility that he 'knowingly'.

Judging from the appellant's conduct, the appellant Guo Wenzhi introduced the circumstances of Xu Chungen's theft case to Xu Chunming and Shi Dali, and explained that the importance of Shi Dali's testimony was not illegal, and even if it was improper, it cannot be determined that the appellant directly and intentionally persuaded Shi Dali to commit perjury.

Appellant Guo Wenzhi's deliberate record of the location of the investigation and the investigators that is inconsistent with the actual situation is not sufficient evidence to prove that Guo Wenzhi lured Shi Dali to give false testimony.

In addition, the fact that the appellant Guo Wenzhi told Xu Chungen the details of Shi Dali's testimony when he met with Xu Chungen in the detention center does not inference that Guo Wenzhi's testimony before and when he approached Shi Dali to verify the facts of the case was false testimony.

Based on the above analysis, the court of first instance found that the appellant Guo Wenzhi had the direct intent to obstruct the testimony on the basis of the available evidence alone, and the evidence was insufficient.

The existing evidence submitted by the procuratorate cannot rule out that Shi Dali's testimony is inconsistent with the facts, and that it is due to the improper way in which the appellant Guo Wenzhi investigated and collected evidence, or because the witness Shi Dali has a vague memory and adopts a laissez-faire attitude towards the authenticity of the testimony.

To sum up, based on the available evidence and ascertained facts, it is difficult to determine that the appellant Guo Wenzhi had the direct intent to obstruct testimony. The defender suggested that the court revoke the original verdict and change the verdict to acquit the appellant Guo Wenzhi. Complete. ”

After Fang Yi finished expressing his defense opinions, he looked at the presiding judge, hoping to catch a trace of information from the latter's eyes, but the latter's eyes were unwavering, and Fang Yi did not succeed.

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

"Presiding Judge and Judge: ...... We believe that the facts and evidence found by the court of first instance are sufficient and the law is properly applied, and we recommend that the court dismiss the appellant's claim in accordance with the law. Complete. The female prosecutor said with a cold face.

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

"In response to the defender's arguments, our views are as follows:

It is not difficult to see from the evidence in this case that after accepting Xu Chunming's entrustment, the appellant Guo Wenzhi in this case behaved very actively in order to obtain evidence favorable to the defendant Xu Chungen, and met with the defendant Xu Chungen many times, and exchanged words back and forth between the defendant and the witnesses.

This positive and abnormal behavior of the appellant is exactly the appearance of the appellant Guo Wenzhi unscrupulously exonerating the defendant Xu Chungen and mitigating the guilt, and the appellant participated in the fabrication of evidence and other acts that obstructed the testimony.

It can be seen from this that the appellant Guo Wenzhi clearly knew that the testimony of the witness Shi Dali and the retraction of the defendant Xu Chungen's confession were contrary to the facts, and there was a suspicion of collusion in confessions, and the appellant Guo Wenzhi had direct intent, which constituted the crime of obstructing testimony. Complete. The female prosecutor responded.

"The appellant's advocate may respond to the prosecutor's opinion." The presiding judge lifted his big eyelids and glanced at Fang Yi.

(End of chapter)