Liao Zongrong v. The No. 2 Branch of the Traffic Authority of Chongqing Public Security Bureau for Disputes over a Decision on Road Traffic Administrative Penalty@#
[Judgment Abstract]@#
1. Under Article 87 of the RoadTraffic Safety Law, traffic policemen on duty have the right to timely rectify roadsafety violation conducts within their respective jurisdictions.  Where there is no counter evidence to rebutthe objectiveness and authenticity of the statement of a traffic policeman abouta violation conduct, or evidence to prove privities between the policeman andthe violator, the statement of the policeman shall be taken as preponderantevidence in proving the existence of the violation.@#
2. A fine of not more than 200 Yuan on the spot to the violator by a policeman onduty is a lawful administrative act as it complies with the principles ofadministration according to law, offering convenience to people and securing orderly,safe, and smooth road traffic, Article 107 of the above mentioned Law andArticle 8 of the Provisions on the Procedures for Punishing Road Traffic SafetyViolation Act. @#
BASIC FACTS@#

Plaintiff: Liao Zongrong, male, 36 years old, jobless and residing at Eling Zheng Street, Yuzhong District, Chongqing.@#
Defendant: The No. 2 Branch of the Traffic Authority of Chongqing Public Security Bureau, domiciled at Tiyu Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing.@#
Person in charge: Jiang Qingguo, director of this branch.@#
Liao Zongrong (hereinafter referred to as Liao) filed an administrative lawsuit with the Yuzhong District People's Court of Chongqing against the No. 2 Branch of the Traffic Authority of Chongqing Public Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the No. 2 Branch) for disputes over a decision on road traffic administrative penalty.@#
Liao, the plaintiff, complained that: a traffic policeman of the No. 2 Branch stopped Liao who was driving his car normally, and said that the plaintiff had violated rules in the u-turn of his car. Liao defended on the spot that he did not violate rules in the u-turn of his car and the policeman could not see the situation because he hid himself behind a tree, but that policeman did not accept his defenses, and made the No. 10001750516 Summary Punishment Decision on Public Security Traffic Management of the Traffic Authority of Chongqing Public Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as No. 516 Decision) on the spot and decided to impose a fine of RMB 200 yuan on Liao. Liao appealed the decision to Chongqing Public Security Bureau for an administrative reconsideration, and Chongqing Public Security Bureau maintained the No. 516 Decision. Article 30 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalty (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Penalty Law) provides that: “Where a citizen, legal person or any other organization violates the order of administrative management, subject to an administrative penalty according to law, the administrative organ shall ascertain the facts; if the facts about the violation are not clear, no administrative penalty shall be imposed.” Paragraph 1 of Article 32 provides that: “The parties shall have the right to present and argue their cases. The administrative organ must fully heed the opinions of the parties and shall consider the facts, grounds and evidence adduced by the parties; if the facts, grounds and evidence adduced by the parties are well-founded, the administrative organ shall accept them.” Article 33 provides that: “If a violation is clear in fact and prescribed in law , and the citizen involved is subject to a fine of not more than RMB 50 yuan or a warning, or the legal person or any other organization involved is subject to a fine of not more than RMB 1,000 yuan or a warning, such an administrative penalty may be decided on the spot.” Article 36 provides that: “Except for the administrative penalties which may be imposed on the spot as provided for in Article 33 of this Law, when finding an act of a citizen, legal person or any other organization subject to the administrative penalty according to law, the administrative organ shall, conduct the investigation in a comprehensive, objective and fair manner and collect relevant evidence; when necessary, may conduct inspection in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations.” Paragraph 1 of Article 37 provides that: “When an administrative organ conducts an investigation or inspection, there shall be not less than two law enforcement officers, who shall show their identification certificates to the party concerned or relevant persons. The party concerned or relevant persons shall truthfully answer the questions and assist in the investigation or inspection, and shall not obstruct the investigation or inspection. Written records shall be made for the questioning or inspection.” Article 42 provides that: “An administrative organ, before making an administrative penalty decision on the order of suspension of production or business, revocation of business permit or license or imposition of a comparatively large amount of fine, shall notify the party of the party's right to request a hearing; if the party requests a hearing, the administrative organ shall arrange for a hearing.” The No. 516 Decision was made by a policeman irrespective of the defenses of the party concerned and based on his own arbitrary judgment, without clear facts and without evidence. The No. 516 Decision was a wrong administrative penalty decision, since it imposed a fine of RMB 200 yuan on Liao on the spot, which was in excess of the maximum RMB 50 yuan prescribed in the law. In order to find out the truth, maintain the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, correct the wrong administrative acts of the traffic policeman, and promote the defendant to administer according to law, Liao filed an administrative lawsuit and requested the court to order the revocation of the No. 516 Decision.@#
．．．．．．

廖宗荣诉重庆市公安局交通管理局第二支队道路交通管理行政处罚决定案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
一、依照道路交通安全法第八十七条规定，交通警察执行职务时，对所在辖区内发现的道路安全违法行为，有权及时纠正。交通警察对违法行为所作陈述如果没有相反证据否定其客观真实性，且没有证据证明该交通警察与违法行为人之间存在利害关系，交通警察的陈述应当作为证明违法行为存在的优势证据。@#
二、交通警察一人执法时，对违法行为人当场给予200元以下罚款，符合道路交通安全法关于依法管理，方便群众，保障道路交通有序、安全、畅通的原则和该法第一百零七条规定，也符合《道路交通安全违法行为处理程序规定》第八条规定，是合法的具体行政行为。@#
@#
原告：廖宗荣，男，36岁，无业，住重庆市渝中区峨岭正街。@#
被告：重庆市公安局交通管理局第二支队，住所地：重庆市渝中区体育路。@#
负责人：蒋清国，该支队队长。@#
原告廖宗荣因不服被告重庆市公安局交通管理局第二支队(以下简称交警二支队)对其作出的交通管理行政处罚决定，向重庆市渝中区人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
原告廖宗荣诉称：被告交警二支队的一名交通警察拦住正常行车的原告，说原告驾车违章掉头。原告当即申辩“没有违章掉头，你一个人躲在树林后面看不清楚”，但该警察不听申辩，　当场制作编号为 10001750516号的《重庆市公安局交通管理局公安交通管理简易程序处罚决定书》 (以下简称516号处罚决定书)，决定对原告处以罚款200元。原告不服，向重庆市公安局申请行政复议，重庆市公安局维持了 516号处罚决定书。《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》(以下简称行政处罚法)第三十条规定：“公民、法人或者其他组织违反行政管理秩序的行为，依法应当给予行政处罚的，行政机关必须查明事实；违法事实不清的，不得给予行政处罚。”第三十二条第一款规定：“当事人有权进行陈述和申辩。行政机关必须充分听取当事人的意见，对当事人提出的事实、理由和证据，应当进行复核；当事人提出的事实、理由或者证据成立的，行政机关应当采纳。”第三十三条规定：“违法事实确凿并有法定依据，对公民处以五十元以下、对法人或者其他组织处以一千元以下罚款或者警告的行政处罚的，可以当场作出行政处罚决定。”第三十六条规定：“除本法第三十三条规定的可以当场作出的行政处罚外，行政机关发现公民、法人或者其他组织有依法应当给予行政处罚的行为的，必须全面、客观、公正地调查，收集有关证据；必要时，依照法律、法规的规定，可以进行检查。”第三十七条第一款规定：“行政机关在调查或者进行检查时，执法人员不得少于两人，并应当向当事人或者有关人员出示证件。当事人或者有关人员应当如实回答询问，并协助调查或者检查，不得阻挠。询问或者检查应当制作笔录。”第四十二条规定：“行政机关作出责令停产停业、吊销许可证或者执照、较大数额罚款等行政处罚决定之前，应当告知当事人有要求举行听证的权利；当事人要求听证的，行政机关应当组织听证。”516号处罚决定书是一名交通警察在不听当事人申辩，仅凭个人主观臆断的情况下作出的，事实不清且没有证据。该处罚决定书的内容是当场决定对原告罚款200元，突破了当场只能处50元以下罚款的法律规定，因而是错误的行政处罚决定。为了弄清事实真相，维护原告合法权益，同时为了纠正交通警察的违法行政行为和促进被告严格依法行政，特提起行政诉讼，请求判令撤销516号处罚决定书。@#
原告廖宗荣提交以下证据：@#
．．．．．．