| Notice by the Supreme People's Procuratorate Regarding Issuance of the Seventh Group of Guiding Cases of the Supreme People's Procuratorate | | 最高人民检察院关于印发最高人民检察院第七批指导性案例的通知 |
| (No. 7 [2016] of the Supreme People's Procuratorate) | | （高检发研字〔2016〕7号） |
| The people's procuratorates of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Procuratorate of the People's Liberation Army; and the People's Procuratorate of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps: | | 各省、自治区、直辖市人民检察院，军事检察院，新疆生产建设兵团人民检察院： |
| Upon decision at the 51st Session of the Twelfth Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on May 13, 2016, four guiding cases including the case involving use of nonpublic information by Ma Le for trading are hereby issued to you for your reference and application. | | 经2016年5月13日最高人民检察院第十二届检察委员会第五十一次会议决定，现将马乐利用未公开信息交易案等四个指导性案例印发你们，供参照适用。 |
| Supreme People's Procuratorate | | 最高人民检察院 |
| May 31, 2016 | | 2016年5月31日 |
| Case Involving Use of Nonpublic Information by Ma Le for Trading | | 马乐利用未公开信息交易案 |
| (SPP Guiding Case No. 24) | | （检例第24号） |
| [Keywords] | | 【关键词】 |
| Erroneous application of law; criminal procuratorial appeal; statutory penalty by reference; extraordinarily serious circumstances | | 适用法律错误 刑事抗诉 援引法定刑 情节特别严重 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| Ma Le, male, born in August 1982, domiciled in Nanyang City, Henan Province. | | 马乐，男，1982年8月生，河南省南阳市人。 |
| Between March 9, 2011, and May 30, 2013, as the portfolio manager of the Bosera Select Stock Investment Fund under Bosera Asset Management Co., Limited, Ma Le took full charge of the investment fund's investment in the stock market, and had access to the nonpublic information on the stocks traded by the Bosera Select Stock Investment Fund and the time and quantity of trading, among others. During his term of office, using such nonpublic information, Ma Le engaged in the relevant securities trading by operating on three stock accounts registered to “Jin [REDACTED],” “Yan [REDACTED] Jin” and “Yan [REDACTED] Wen” under his control and by placing orders through unregistered Easyown SIM cards purchased by him for temporary use, and earlier than, concurrently with, or slightly later than the “Bosera Select” fund account under his management, traded 76 same stocks, totaling over 105 million yuan cumulatively in trading volume, and made profits of 19,120,246.98 yuan illegally. | | 2011年3月9日至2013年5月30日期间，马乐担任博时基金管理有限公司旗下博时精选股票证券投资基金经理，全权负责投资基金投资股票市场，掌握了博时精选股票证券投资基金交易的标的股票、交易时点和交易数量等未公开信息。马乐在任职期间利用其掌控的上述未公开信息，操作自己控制的“金某”“严某进”“严某雯”三个股票账户，通过临时购买的不记名神州行电话卡下单，从事相关证券交易活动，先于、同期或稍晚于其管理的“博时精选”基金账户，买卖相同股票76只，累计成交金额人民币10.5亿余元，非法获利人民币19120246.98元。 |
| [Proceedings] | | 【诉讼过程】 |
| On June 21, 2013, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) decided to open an official investigation into Ma Le's suspected acts of using nonpublic information for trading, and the case was assigned to the Shenzhen Office of the CSRC for investigation. On July 17, 2013, Ma Le turned himself in to the Shenzhen Municipal Public Security Bureau in Guangdong Province. On January 2, 2014, the People's Procuratorate of Shenzhen City instituted a public prosecution at the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, charging defendant Ma Le with using nonpublic information for trading with extraordinarily serious circumstances. On March 24, 2014, the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City as the court of first instance rendered a judgment, finding Ma Le guilty of using nonpublic information for trading and sentencing him to imprisonment of three years with a suspension of five years and a fine of 18.84 million yuan, with recovery of his illegal gain of 18.83 million yuan, on account that paragraph 4 of Article 180 of the Criminal Law contained no provision relating to the extraordinarily serious circumstances of using nonpublic information for trading and the crime of Ma Le was with serious circumstances and in consideration of mitigating circumstances for lesser punishment within the sentencing range such as his voluntary surrender of himself and illegal gain, good repentance, and full payment of the fine. | | 2013年6月21日中国证监会决定对马乐涉嫌利用未公开信息交易行为立案稽查，交深圳证监局办理。2013年7月17日，马乐到广东省深圳市公安局投案。2014年1月2日，深圳市人民检察院向深圳市中级人民法院提起公诉，指控被告人马乐构成利用未公开信息交易罪，情节特别严重。2014年3月24日，深圳市中级人民法院作出一审判决，认定马乐构成利用未公开信息交易罪，鉴于刑法第一百八十条第四款未对利用未公开信息交易罪情节特别严重作出相关规定，马乐属于犯罪情节严重，同时考虑其具有自首、退赃、认罪态度良好、罚金能全额缴纳等可以从轻处罚情节，因此判处其有期徒刑三年，缓刑五年，并处罚金1884万元，同时对其违法所得1883万余元予以追缴。 |
| The People's Procuratorate of Shenzhen City filed a procuratorial appeal with the High People's Court of Guangdong Province on April 4, 2014, alleging that: The acts of defendant Ma Le should be determined as a crime with extraordinarily serious circumstances and the defendant should be punished at the sentencing level of extraordinarily serious circumstances. Instead of voluntary surrender of his illegal gain, it should be determined that his illegal gain was recovered by the judicial authority. The original judgment was erroneous in the application of law, leading to evidently inappropriate sentencing, and should be modified according to the law. On August 28, 2014, the People's Procuratorate of Guangdong Province issued an Opinion Letter on Supporting Criminal Procuratorial Appeal to the High People's Court of Guangdong Province, stating that the original judgment was erroneous in the finding of circumstances, leading to inappropriate sentencing, and should be corrected according to the law. | | 深圳市人民检察院于2014年4月4日向广东省高级人民法院提出抗诉，认为被告人马乐的行为应当认定为犯罪情节特别严重，依照“情节特别严重”的量刑档次处罚；马乐的行为不属于退赃，应当认定为司法机关追赃。一审判决适用法律错误，量刑明显不当，应当依法改判。2014年8月28日，广东省人民检察院向广东省高级人民法院发出《支持刑事抗诉意见书》，认为一审判决认定情节错误，导致量刑不当，应当依法纠正。 |
| The High People's Court of Guangdong Province rendered a final ruling on October 20, 2014, holding that paragraph 4 of Article 180 of the Criminal Law did not provide for any extraordinarily serious circumstance of the crime of using nonpublic information for trading, the acts of Ma Le were with serious circumstances, Ma Le should be punished within the sentencing range for serious circumstances, and it lacked legal basis for the appealing authority to argue that the acts of Ma Le were with extraordinarily serious circumstances, dismissing the procuratorial appeal, and maintaining the original judgment. | | 广东省高级人民法院于2014年10月20日作出终审裁定，认为刑法第一百八十条第四款并未对利用未公开信息交易罪规定有“情节特别严重”情形，马乐的行为属“情节严重”，应在该量刑幅度内判处刑罚，抗诉机关提出马乐的行为应认定为“情节特别严重”缺乏法律依据；驳回抗诉，维持原判。 |
| Considering that the final ruling was erroneous in understanding the provisions of the law, leading to erroneous determination of the circumstance and inappropriate application of a suspended sentence, on November 27, 2014, the People's Procuratorate of Guangdong Province referred the case to the Supreme People's Procuratorate for a procuratorial appeal . On December 8, 2014, the Supreme People's Procuratorate filed a procuratorial appeal with the Supreme People's Court under the trial supervision procedures. | | 广东省人民检察院认为终审裁定理解法律规定错误，导致认定情节错误，适用缓刑不当，于2014年11月27日提请最高人民检察院抗诉。2014年12月8日，最高人民检察院按照审判监督程序向最高人民法院提出抗诉。 |
| [Grounds for Procuratorial Appeal] | | 【抗诉理由】 |
| Upon examination, the Supreme People's Procuratorate held that: Ma Le, defendant in original trial, engaged in the relevant securities trading in violation of the applicable provisions using nonpublic information obtained by taking advantage of his position, totaling over 105 million yuan in trading volume cumulatively, and made illegal gain of over 18.83 million yuan, which was an extraordinarily serious circumstance of the crime of using nonpublic information for trading. The final ruling failed to determine the extraordinarily serious circumstance on account that paragraph 4 of Article 180 of the Criminal Law did not provide for any extraordinarily serious circumstance of the crime of using nonpublic information for trading, which was erroneous in the application of law by applying a lower level to the evaluation of the criminal acts of the defendant, leading to inappropriate sentencing. The grounds were as follows: | | 最高人民检察院审查认为，原审被告人马乐利用因职务便利获取的未公开信息，违反规定从事相关证券交易活动，累计成交额人民币10.5亿余元，非法获利人民币1883万余元，属于利用未公开信息交易罪“情节特别严重”的情形。本案终审裁定以刑法第一百八十条第四款并未对利用未公开信息交易罪有“情节特别严重”规定为由，对此情形不作认定，降格评价被告人的犯罪行为，属于适用法律确有错误，导致量刑不当。理由如下： |
I. Paragraph 4 of Article 180 of the Criminal Law | | 一、刑法第一百八十条第四款属于援引法定刑的情形，应当引用第一款处罚的全部规定。按照立法精神，刑法第一百八十条第四款中的“情节严重”是入罪标准，在处罚上应当依照本条第一款的全部罚则处罚，即区分情形依照第一款规定的“情节严重”和“情节特别严重”两个量刑档次处罚。首先，援引的重要作用就是减少法条重复表述，只需就该罪的基本构成要件作出表述，法定刑全部援引即可；如果法定刑不是全部援引，才需要对不同量刑档次作出明确表述，规定独立的罚则。刑法分则多个条文都存在此种情形，这是业已形成共识的立法技术问题。其次，刑法第一百八十条第四款“情节严重”的规定是入罪标准，作此规定是为了避免“情节不严重”也入罪，而非量刑档次的限缩。最后，从立法和司法解释先例来看，刑法第二百八十五条第三款也存在相同的文字表述，2011年《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理危害计算机信息系统安全刑事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条明确规定了刑法第二百八十五条第三款包含有“情节严重”、“情节特别严重”两个量刑档次。司法解释的这一规定，表明了最高司法机关对援引法定刑立法例的一贯理解。 |
| II. The extents of unlawfulness and liability of the crime of using nonpublic information for trading were equivalent to those of the crime of insider trading or divulgence of insider information, and so should be the statutory penalties. The crime of insider trading or divulgence of insider information and the crime of using nonpublic information for trading were both crimes where a certain person engaged in trading by using nonpublic information that may affect the trading prices on the securities and futures markets. The major difference between the two crimes was the difference scopes of information. Their natures of profiting from nonpublic information and such information's influence over prices were the same, and both severely damaged the order of financial administration and the interests of investors. Article 180 of the Criminal Law provided for the two crimes in separate paragraphs, confirming the equivalence of the two crimes in the extents of unlawfulness and liability. As far as danger to society was concerned, the statutory penalties for the two crimes should also be equivalent. | | 二、利用未公开信息交易罪与内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪的违法与责任程度相当，法定刑亦应相当。内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪和利用未公开信息交易罪，都属于特定人员利用未公开的可能对证券、期货市场交易价格产生影响的信息从事交易活动的犯罪。两罪的主要差别在于信息范围不同，其通过信息的未公开性和价格影响性获利的本质相同，均严重破坏了金融管理秩序，损害了公众投资者利益。刑法将两罪放在第一百八十条中分款予以规定，亦是对两罪违法和责任程度相当的确认。因此，从社会危害性理解，两罪的法定刑也应相当。 |
| III. The acts of Ma Le should be determined to constitute a crime with extraordinarily serious circumstances, and it was evidently inappropriate to suspend his sentence. The Provisions (II) on the Standards for Opening Criminal Cases under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Authorities for Prosecution after Lapse of the Prescriptive Period Issued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security provided for the same prosecution standards for serious circumstances of the crime of insider trading or divulgence of insider information and the crime of using nonpublic information for trading. The Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate of Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Insider Trading or Divulgence of Insider Information determined the trading volume of 2.5 million yuan or more and the gain of 750,000 yuan or more, among others, as extraordinarily serious circumstances of the crime of insider trading or divulgence of insider information. As previously mentioned, if the crime of using nonpublic information for trading was with extraordinarily serious circumstances, the same standard should be followed in accordance with paragraph 1. Ma Le used nonpublic information for trading activities, totaling over 105 million yuan in trading volume cumulatively, and made illegal gain of over 18.83 million yuan, which were evidently extraordinarily serious circumstances, and the sentencing range of “imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than ten years” should be applied. Despite his voluntary surrender, the application of a suspended sentence failed to show that the penalty fitted the crime and liability, and failed to achieve the purposes of punishing and preventing crimes, and the sentencing was evidently inappropriate. | | 三、马乐的行为应当认定为“情节特别严重”，对其适用缓刑明显不当。《最高人民检察院、公安部关于公安机关管辖的刑事案件立案追诉标准的规定（二）》对内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪和利用未公开信息交易罪“情节严重”规定了相同的追诉标准，《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理内幕交易、泄露内幕信息刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》将成交额250万元以上、获利75万元以上等情形认定为内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪“情节特别严重”。如前所述，利用未公开信息交易罪“情节特别严重”的，也应当依照第一款的规定，遵循相同的标准。马乐利用未公开信息进行交易活动，累计成交额人民币10.5亿余元，从中非法获利人民币1883万余元，显然属于“情节特别严重”，应当在“五年以上十年以下有期徒刑”的幅度内量刑。其虽有自首情节，但适用缓刑无法体现罪责刑相适应，无法实现惩罚和预防犯罪的目的，量刑明显不当。 |
| IV. The correct understanding and application of the legal issues involved in this case would be of great significance to juridical practice and in maintaining the sound development of the financial market in China. Since the crime of using nonpublic information for trading was added in Amendment (VII) to the Criminal Law, judicial authorities had long been divided over whether there were extraordinarily serious circumstances of this crime and whether there were two sentencing levels, on which a consensus was in urgent need. The correct understanding and application of the legal issues involved in this case would be of great guidance for specifying the handling of the same type of cases and the punishment of crimes committed by the same type of practitioners, and would be of great significance in intensifying the crackdown on “rat trading” and other acts that seriously damaged the financial administration order, maintaining the order of socialist market economy, and safeguarding the sound development of capital markets. | | 四、本案所涉法律问题的正确理解和适用，对司法实践和维护我国金融市场的健康发展具有重要意义。自刑法修正案（七）增设利用未公开信息交易罪以来，司法机关对该罪是否存在“情节特别严重”、是否有两个量刑档次长期存在分歧，亟需统一认识。正确理解和适用本案所涉法律问题，对明确同类案件的处理、同类从业人员犯罪的处罚具有重要指导作用，对于加大打击“老鼠仓”等严重破坏金融管理秩序的行为，维护社会主义市场经济秩序，保障资本市场健康发展具有重要意义。 |
| [Case Results] | | 【案件结果】 |
| On July 8, 2015, the First Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court tried this case in public, the Supreme People's Procuratorate assigned prosecutors to appear in court to perform their duties in accordance with the law, and the defender for Ma Le, defendant in original trial, presented defense opinions in court. The Supreme People's Court held that the Supreme People's Procuratorate's understanding of paragraph 4 of Article 180 of the Criminal Law as a paragraph that provided for statutory penalties by reference and argument in appeal that the acts of Ma Le, defendant in original trial, constituted a crime with extraordinarily serious circumstances were correct, and should be adopted; and the defense opinions of the defender were groundless and should not be adopted. The original adjudication should be corrected for the erroneous understanding of the statutory penalties by reference in paragraph 4 of Article 180 of the Criminal Law, which led to the determination of the circumstances of Ma Le's crime at a lower level and the inappropriate application of a suspended sentence to Ma Le. | | 2015年7月8日，最高人民法院第一巡回法庭公开开庭审理此案，最高人民检察院依法派员出庭履行职务，原审被告人马乐的辩护人当庭发表了辩护意见。最高人民法院审理认为，最高人民检察院对刑法第一百八十条第四款援引法定刑的理解及原审被告人马乐的行为属于犯罪情节特别严重的抗诉意见正确，应予采纳；辩护人的辩护意见不能成立，不予采纳。原审裁判因对刑法第一百八十条第四款援引法定刑的理解错误，导致降格认定了马乐的犯罪情节，进而对马乐判处缓刑确属不当，应予纠正。 |
| On December 11, 2015, the Supreme People's Court rendered a final ruling on the retrial case: the part of the original criminal judgment on the conviction of defendant Ma Le should be maintained; the part of the original criminal judgment on the sentencing of Ma Le, defendant in original trial, and recovery of illegal gain should be revoked; Ma Le, defendant in original trial, was guilty of using nonpublic information for trading, and should be sentenced to imprisonment of three years and a fine of 19.13 million yuan; and the illegal proceeds of 19,120,246.98 yuan should be recovered and turned over to the state treasury in accordance with the law. | | 2015年12月11日，最高人民法院作出再审终审判决：维持原刑事判决中对被告人马乐的定罪部分；撤销原刑事判决中对原审被告人马乐的量刑及追缴违法所得部分；原审被告人马乐犯利用未公开信息交易罪，判处有期徒刑三年，并处罚金人民币1913万元；违法所得人民币19120246.98元依法予以追缴，上缴国库。 |
| [Key Points] | | 【要 旨】 |
| Paragraph 4 of Article 180 of the Criminal Law provides for the statutory penalties for the crime of using nonpublic information for trading by reference, and it should be understood that the entire penalties in paragraph 1 are referred to. The adverbial clause of “if the circumstances are serious” is a standard of criminalization, and the crime should be punished according to the entire statutory penalties for the crime of insider trading or divulgence of insider information in paragraph 1 of this article, i.e. penalties should be imposed separately by distinguishing between different circumstances according to the two sentencing levels of serious circumstances and extraordinarily serious circumstances as provided for in paragraph 1. | | 刑法第一百八十条第四款利用未公开信息交易罪为援引法定刑的情形，应当是对第一款法定刑的全部援引。其中，“情节严重”是入罪标准，在处罚上应当依照本条第一款内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪的全部法定刑处罚，即区分不同情形分别依照第一款规定的“情节严重”和“情节特别严重”两个量刑档次处罚。 |
| [Guiding Significance] | | 【指导意义】 |
| The legislative model of “elements of a crime plus statutory penalties” adopted in the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law of China decides the basic adoption of the legislative technique of statutory penalties by reference in the regulation of the text of the law for crimes with a similar nature and equivalent danger to society. The dispute over the understanding of statutory penalties by reference in paragraph 4 of Article 180 of the Criminal Law in this case is a theoretical issue on the interpretation of the Criminal Law. The correct understanding of the text of the Criminal Law should begin with interpretation based on the semantic meanings of the text, and by the comprehensive use of multiple interpretation methods such as interpretation based on the legal system and purposive interpretation and according to the requirements of the principle of no punishment without law and principle of penalty fitting the crime and liability, the legislative purpose is understood from the perspective of the whole system of the Criminal Law to balance the protection of legal interests. | | 我国刑法分则“罪状＋法定刑”的立法模式决定了在性质相近、危害相当罪名的法条规范上，基本采用援引法定刑的立法技术。本案对刑法第一百八十条第四款援引法定刑理解的争议是刑法解释的理论问题。正确理解刑法条文，应当以文义解释为起点，综合运用体系解释、目的解释等多种解释方法，按照罪刑法定原则和罪责刑相适应原则的要求，从整个刑法体系中把握立法目的，平衡法益保护。 |
| 1. From the perspective of semantic meanings of the legal text, the adverbial clause of “if the circumstances are serious” in paragraph 4 of Article 180 of the Criminal Law is a criterion for criminalization and an element of the crime, indicating the trait of the crime as a crime with particular circumstances and limiting the scope of punishment to avoid the criminalization of acts with circumstances that are not serious, rather than limiting the crime to a lower sentencing level. The adverbial clause of “if the circumstances are serious” in this paragraph is not followed by specific statutory penalties, and thus lacks the nature of a sentencing provision. Instead, the sentencing provision is “be punished under paragraph 1,” which should be understood to refer to all statutory penalties in paragraph 1, rather than a partial reference, i.e. there are two types of circumstances: “if the circumstances are serious” and “if the circumstances are extraordinarily serious,” and two sentencing levels. | | 1．从法条文义理解，刑法第一百八十条第四款中的“情节严重”是入罪条款，为犯罪构成要件，表明该罪情节犯的属性，具有限定处罚范围的作用，以避免“情节不严重”的行为也入罪，而非量刑档次的限缩。本条款中“情节严重”之后并未列明具体的法定刑，不兼具量刑条款的性质，量刑条款为“依照第一款的规定处罚”，应当理解为对第一款法定刑的全部援引而非部分援引，即同时存在“情节严重”、“情节特别严重”两种情形和两个量刑档次。 |
2. From the perspective of coordination of the system of the Criminal Law, on one hand, there are clauses in the Criminal Law with language similar to that in paragraph 4 of Article 180 of the law, corroborating that the statutory penalties by reference include all statutory penalties in the paragraph referred to. For instance, paragraph 3 of Article 285 of the Criminal Law provides: “… if the circumstances are serious, be punished under the preceding paragraph,” and Article 3 of the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate of Several Issues on the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving Endangering the Security of Computer Information Systems in 2011 makes clear that the aforesaid paragraph includes two sentencing levels of serious circumstances and extraordinarily serious circumstances. On the other hand, taking the other provisions of the Criminal Law as an opposite example, reference is not possible if there is any subtle difference in the setting of statutory penalties. For instance, paragraph 2 of Article 180 of the Criminal Law, which provides for the crime of insider trading or divulgence of insider information committed by entities, expressly provides: “… sentenced to imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention,” rather than refers to the statutory penalties for such crimes committed by individuals in the preceding paragraph. The reasons behind it are that paragraph 1 provides for the two sentencing levels of serious circumstances and extraordinarily serious circumstances, while paragraph 2 only provides for one sentencing level and the directly liable person in charge and other directly liable persons are not fined. To avoid ambiguity, the method of statutory penalties by reference would not be adopted, and the relevant statutory penalties should be specified.
．．．．．． | | 2．从刑法体系的协调性考量，一方面，刑法中存在与第一百八十条第四款表述类似的条款，印证了援引法定刑为全部援引。如刑法第二百八十五条第三款规定“情节严重的，依照前款的规定处罚”，2011年《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理危害计算机信息系统安全刑事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条明确了本款包含有“情节严重”、“情节特别严重”两个量刑档次。另一方面，从刑法其他条文的反面例证看，法定刑设置存在细微差别时即无法援引。如刑法第一百八十条第二款关于内幕交易、泄露内幕信息罪单位犯罪的规定，没有援引前款个人犯罪的法定刑，而是单独明确规定处五年以下有期徒刑或者拘役。这是因为第一款规定了情节严重、情节特别严重两个量刑档次，而第二款只有一个量刑档次，并且不对直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员并处罚金。在这种情况下，为避免发生歧义，立法不会采用援引法定刑的方式，而是对相关法定刑作出明确表述。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥1600.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |