It can be seen from this that the defendant Guan Jiang's purpose of killing and killing people is very clear, and his subjective purpose in committing violence is no longer to forcibly rob property, but simply to deprive others of their lives, and he has the intent to kill rather than the intent to rob.

In addition, the same facts of the perpetrator's crime cannot be discussed repeatedly; When the defendant's conduct has already been evaluated as the factual basis for a crime, that factor can no longer be evaluated as the factual basis for another crime.

The defendant in this case, Guan Jiang, only committed homicide, and this act has been evaluated as a constitutive element of the crime of intentional homicide, and can no longer be used as the basis for determining the crime of robbery.

To sum up, the defendant in this case, Guan Jiang, killed people in order to kill the victim in the process of theft, not premeditated intentional homicide for the purpose of stealing property, or intentionally killed in order to subdue the victim's resistance in the process of stealing property, and intentionally killed in order to extinguish the mouth after committing the robbery.

The defendant's conduct in this case did not meet the provisions 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", nor did it meet the requirements of the purpose of converting robbery as provided for in article 269 of the Criminal Law.

In view of the fact that the defendant is a first-time offender or an occasional offender, the defender recommends that the defendant be sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve. Complete. ”

After Du Yong finished speaking, he looked up at the presiding judge, and then looked at Guan Jiang in the defendant's seat, who was still sobbing.

"The prosecutor may respond to the defender's arguments." The presiding judge felt that both sides seemed to have something to say, so he said.

"Okay, in response to the defender's defense opinion, the prosecutor made the following opinion:

According to Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Robbery Cases, 'home robbery' as provided for in Article 263 (1) of the Criminal Law refers to the act of entering a residence that is relatively isolated from the outside world for the purpose of committing robbery, including closed courtyards, herdsmen's tents, fishing boats used by fishermen as family living places, and houses rented for daily life.

For burglary, the use of violence or the threat of violence on the spot because they are discovered shall be found to be a burglary.

According to the provisions of the judicial interpretation, as long as the burglary is discovered and violence is used on the spot, it should be deemed to be a burglary.

The defendant's conduct in this case was burglary, and because it was discovered, the defendant Guan Jiang killed the victim in order to kill the victim, and it should be found to be a burglary. Therefore, this case should be characterized as robbery and intentional homicide. Complete. The prosecutor looked at the presiding judge.

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

"Based on the prosecutor's defense and response, the defense issued the following defense opinions:

The defender believes that the application of the "Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Robbery Cases" cannot be mechanically copied from the law, but should be applied by comprehensively considering the purpose and basis of its interpretation. In this case, defendant Guan Jiang's conduct should not be found to be a robbery for the following reasons:

First of all, the problem to be solved by the above interpretation is mainly how to understand the several circumstances of aggravating the statutory sentence provided for in Article 263 of the Criminal Law, and the first article mainly explains the concept of 'household' and what circumstances constitute "home robbery".

For burglary, the use of violence or the threat of violence on the spot because it is discovered shall be found to be a burglary, which solves the question of 'can' be converted into a burglary, rather than a one-size-fits-all characterization of the violent act committed by burglary.

Second, the interpretation is based on the Criminal Law, and cannot be understood and applied in a way that violates the basic requirements of the Criminal Law and the spirit of the legislation.

According to the provisions of the Criminal Law, the composition of a crime must have all the constituent elements, including subjective and objective aspects, and adhere to the unity of subjectivity and objectivity.

Judicial interpretations of the Criminal Law must be based on the provisions of the Criminal Law and faithful to the legislative intent and spirit of the Criminal Law.

Therefore, the interpretation of the provisions of the Interpretation on the transformation of "burglary" into "burglary" should be premised on the provisions of the Criminal Law on the conversion of robbery.

Article 269 of the Criminal Law clearly stipulates that the prerequisites for transformation can only be the three circumstances of harboring stolen goods, resisting arrest, or destroying criminal evidence.

Finally, there is no need for judicial interpretations of the provisions of the Criminal Law that are clear and unambiguous. Therefore, the above interpretation does not repeatedly enumerate these three situations, and the fact that these three situations are not clearly stated in the interpretation cannot be interpreted one-sidedly to mean that all 'burglary, the use of violence or the threat of violence on the spot because they are discovered' are all recognized as home burglary, regardless of the specific circumstances.

In other words, if the defendant is discovered during the burglary, because he sees the victim's beauty, he gives up the idea of stealing and violently rapes the victim on the spot, and the circumstances are also in line with the situation of 'burglary, using violence or threatening violence on the spot because he is discovered', it is obviously absurd to identify the rape as a burglary without considering the subjective purpose of the perpetrator.

Therefore, in applying the above interpretation, the transformation of burglary into burglary must comply with the provisions of article 269 of the Criminal Law on conversion into robbery.

If the defendant does not possess the three circumstances provided for in article 269 of the Criminal Law at the time of committing violence, the above interpretation cannot be mechanically applied and his conduct cannot be found to be robbery.

Therefore, in this case, the defendant's conduct only constituted the crime of intentional homicide, not the crime of robbery. Complete. Du Yong responded.

……

After the trial was adjourned, the collegial panel directly pronounced the verdict.

The Intermediate People's Court held that the defendant Guan Jiang was discovered in the process of theft and used methods such as pinching and cutting the neck of the victim Guan Tong with his hands and knives, causing the death of the victim Guan Tong, which constituted the crime of intentional homicide. On the basis of the facts of the defendant Guan Jiang's crime, the nature and circumstances of the crime, and the degree of harm to society, and in accordance with the provisions of article 232 and article 57, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law, it is decided that the defendant Guan Jiang is guilty of intentional homicide and is sentenced to death and deprived of political rights for life.

After the verdict was announced, Guan Jiang collapsed directly in the defendant's dock and was dragged out of the courtroom by the bailiffs. Guan Jiang's mother Zhang Shuilan in the auditorium fainted directly in distress, and after some rescue, Zhang Shuilan slowly opened her eyes, tears flowed down uncontrollably, and she couldn't say a word.

With the help of Du Yong and Yun Qiao, Guan Jibao helped his daughter-in-law out of the courthouse and got into Du Yong's Jetta car. Seeing Guan Jibao's daughter-in-law like this, Du Yong couldn't bear it and decided to drive them back.

Two changes today!

(End of chapter)