>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
No. 1 Branch of Tianjin Municipal People's Procuratorate v. Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen, Dong Hui, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao (A Case about Kidnapping)
天津市人民检察院第一分院诉李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉、燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超绑架案
【法宝引证码】

No. 1 Branch of Tianjin Municipal People’s Procuratorate v. Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen, Dong Hui, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao (A Case about Kidnapping)
(A Case about Kidnapping)
天津市人民检察院第一分院诉李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉、燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超绑架案

No. 1 Branch of Tianjin Municipal People's Procuratorate v. Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen, Dong Hui, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao
(A Case about Kidnapping)

 

天津市人民检察院第一分院诉李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉、燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超绑架案

 【裁判摘要】
 根据《中华人民共和国刑法》第二十五条的规定,共同犯罪是指二人以上共同故意犯罪,各共同犯罪人必须具有共同犯罪的故意。所谓共同犯罪的故意,是指各共同犯罪人通过意思联络,知道自己是和他人配合共同实施犯罪,认识到共同犯罪行为的性质以及该行为所导致的危害社会的结果,并且希望或者放任这种结果的发生。如果行为人并不了解他人真正的犯罪意图,不清楚他人所实施的犯罪行为的性质,而是被他人蒙骗或者出于自己的错误认识,在错误理解犯罪性质的情况下参与他人实施的犯罪,则不能认定该行为人与他人实施了共同犯罪,而应当依据该行为人的犯罪实际情况,按照主客观一致的原则正确定罪处罚。
BASIC FACTS 
Public Prosecution Organ: No. 1 Branch of Tianjin Municipal People's Procuratorate. 公诉机关:天津市人民检察院第一分院。
Defendant: Li Bin, a.k.a. Big Bin, male, 25 years old, Han ethnicity, farmer, residing at Wangkou Town, Jinghai County, Tianjin City, who was detained on March 26, 2006 on suspicion of crime of kidnapping and arrested on April 27 of the same year. 被告人:李彬,又名大彬,男,25岁,汉族,农民,住天津市静海县王口镇。因涉嫌犯绑架罪于2006年3月26日被刑事拘留,同年4月27日被逮捕。
Defendant: Yuan Nanjing, a.k.a. Yuan Jinjiang, male, 33 years old, Han ethnicity, farmer, residing at Zhaozhuang Town, Feng County, Jiangsu Province, who was detained on March 23, 2006 on suspicion of crime of kidnapping and arrested on April 27 of the same year. 被告人:袁南京,又名袁金强,男,33岁,汉族,农民,住江苏省丰县赵庄镇。因涉嫌犯绑架罪于2006年3月23日被刑事拘留,同年4月27日被逮捕。
Defendant: Hu Haizhen, a.k.a. Big Zhen, male, 24 years old, Han ethnicity, farmer, residing at Liangwangzhuang Town, Jinghai County, Tianjin City, who was detained on March 26, 2006 on suspicion of crime of kidnapping and arrested on April 27 of the same year. 被告人:胡海珍,又名大振,男,24岁,汉族,农民,住天津市静海县良王庄乡。因涉嫌犯绑架罪于2006年3月26日被刑事拘留,同年4月27日被逮捕。
Defendant: Dong Hui, a.k.a. Little Hui, male, 24 years old, Han ethnicity, farmer, residing at Wangkou Town, Jinghai County, Tianjin City, who was detained on March 26, 2006 on suspicion of crime of kidnapping and arrested on April 27 of the same year. 被告人:东辉,又名小辉,男,24岁,汉族,农民,住天津市静海县王口镇。因涉嫌犯绑架罪于2006年3月26日被刑事拘留,同年4月27日被逮捕。
Defendant: Yan Yufeng, a.k.a. Chouzi, male, 20 years old, Han ethnicity, farmer, residing at Qiujiadian Town, Taishan District, Taian City, Shandong Province, who was detained on March 25, 2006 on suspicion of crime of kidnapping and arrested on April 27 of the same year. 被告人:燕玉峰,又名丑子,男,20岁,汉族,农民,住山东省泰安市泰山区邱家店镇。因涉嫌犯绑架罪于2006年3月25日被刑事拘留,同年4月27日被逮捕。
Defendant: Liu Shaorong, male, 20 years old, Han ethnicity, jobless, residing in Taishan District, Taian City, Shandong Province, who was detained on March 25, 2006 on suspicion of crime of kidnapping and arrested on April 27 of the same year. 被告人:刘少荣,男,20岁,汉族,无业,住山东省泰安市泰山区。因涉嫌犯绑架罪于2006年3月25日被刑事拘留,同年 4月27日被逮捕。
Defendant: Liu Yu, male, 21 years old, Han ethnicity, student, residing in Taishan District, Taian City, Shandong Province, who was detained on March 25, 2006 on suspicion of crime of kidnapping and arrested on April 27 of the same year. 被告人:刘钰,男,21岁,汉族,学生,住山东省泰安市泰山区。因涉嫌犯绑架罪于2006年3月25日被刑事拘留,同年4月27日被逮捕。
Defendant: Liu Chao, male, 18 years old, Han ethnicity, jobless, residing in Taishan District, Taian City, Shandong Province, who was detained on April 11, 2006 on suspicion of crime of kidnapping and arrested on April 27 of the same year. 被告人刘超,男,18岁,汉族,无业,住山东省泰安市泰山区。2006年4月11日被刑事拘留,同年4月27日被依法逮捕。
No.1 Branch of Tianjin Municipal People's Procuratorate instituted a public prosecution in the No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin City against Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen, Dong Hui, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao for the crime of kidnapping. 天津市人民检察院第一分院以被告人李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉、燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超犯绑架罪,向天津市第一中级人民法院提起公诉。
According to the indictment, in early March, 2006, the defendants, Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen and Dong Hui, conspired to kidnap the victim, Shi Linqing, to extort money. In the name of recovering debts for others, Yuan Nanjing brought Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao into this case. At about 2 o'clock on March 9 of the same year, with instruments prepared beforehand, Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao drove a car to Shi Linqing's residence in Zhengzhuangzi Village, Wangkou Town, Jinghai County, Tianjin City. Pretending to be police officers, they forcibly took Shi Linqing to a shelter in a mountainous area of Taian City, Shandong Province. As planned, Dong Hui stayed in Tianjin to see whether Shi Linqing's family would call the police, while Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao watched Shi Linqing. Later, Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing and Hu Haizhen extorted a ransom of 800,000 yuan from Shi Lingqing's family. They shared and splurged the money by buying gold, etc. On March 10 of the same year, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao learned that there was no debtor-creditor relationship between Shi Linqing and Li Bin, et al., and released Shi Linqing in the afternoon of the next day after Shi Linqing promised to give them 100,000 yuan. Afterwards, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu and Liu Shaorong extorted 60,000 yuan from Shi Linqing, which was shared and splurged by them. In summary, the acts of Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen, Dong Hui, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao had constituted the crime of kidnapping according to Articles 239 and 25 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Criminal Law”). Because Liu Chao was under 18 when committing the crime, he should be given a lighter punishment pursuant to paragraph 3, Article 17 of the Criminal Law. The prosecutor requested the court to impose criminal punishment on the above defendants according to law. 起诉书指控:2006年3月初,被告人李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉预谋绑架被害人石林清勒索钱财。袁南京即以帮助他人讨债为由,纠集被告人燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超参与作案。同年3月9日2时许,李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超携带事先准备的作案工具,驾车到石林清位于天津市静海县王口镇郑庄子村的住处,冒充公安人员强行将石林清绑架至山东省泰安市山区的一处住房。按照事先的分工,东辉留在天津监视石林清的家属是否报警,燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超负责看押石林清。尔后,李彬、袁南京、胡海珍向石林清的家属勒索赎金人民币80万元,购买黄金后私分挥霍。同年3月10日,燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超得知石林清与李彬等人根本不存在债务关系,在石林清答应给他们10万元的情况下,于次日下午将石林清放走。后燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣向石林清索要人民币6万元,私分挥霍。综上,李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉、燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超的行为已触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》(以下简称刑法)第二百三十九条、第二十五条之规定,均构成绑架罪。刘超犯罪时未满18周岁,应适用刑法十七条第三款之规定从轻处罚。提请依法追究上述被告人的刑事责任。
All the defendants admitted the major facts alleged in the indictment. 各被告人均承认公诉机关指控的主要犯罪事实。
Defendant Li Bin argued that the kidnapping was not proposed by him. 被告人李彬辩称:实施绑架不是由本人提议。
Defendant Dong Hui and his defender asked for a lighter punishment on him by contending that Dong Hui did not commit the specific acts of kidnapping, was an accomplice, voluntarily confessed to the crime and showed good repentance. 被告人东辉及其辩护人辩称:东辉没有具体实施绑架行为,系从犯,认罪态度好,请求从轻处罚。
Defendant Yan Yufeng argued that he had no intention of kidnapping and did not commit the crime of kidnapping because he did not take part in the premeditation of kidnapping. 被告人燕玉峰辩称:事先未参与绑架犯罪共谋,没有绑架的故意,不构成绑架罪。
Defendants Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao as well as their defenders all argued that: none of the three defendants participated in the premeditation of kidnapping; they did it only for their belief that they were collecting debts for someone else, not intending to kidnap, and they did not extort money from the victim after the event; therefore, their acts did not constitute kidnapping. 被告人刘钰、刘少荣、刘超及其辩护人均辩称:事先未参与绑架犯罪共谋,只认为是替人讨债,没有绑架的故意,事后也没有勒索被害人,不构成绑架罪。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Through trial of the first instance, the No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin City found that: 天津市第一中级人民法院一审查明:
In early March 2006, defendants Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen and Dong Hui conspired to kidnap and extort money from Shi Linqing. In the name of helping others recover debts, Yuan Nanjing brought other defendants, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao, into this case. At around 2 o'clock on March 9 of the same year, Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao, carrying prepared instruments, drove a car to Shi Linqing's residence in Zhengzhuangzi Village, Wangkou Town, Jinghai County, Tianjin City. They pretended to be police officers and forcibly took Shi Linqing to a house in a mountainous area of Taian City, Shandong Province. Li Bin and Yuan Nanjing let Dong Hui stay in Tianjin to see whether Shi Linqing's family would call the police, and asked Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao to watch Shi Linqing in the house. Later, Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing and Hu Haizhen demanded ransoms from Shi Linqing's family in twice and obtained a total of 800,000 yuan. As required by them, Shi Linqing's family deposited the money into a credit card account opened by Li Bin, et al. Afterwards, Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing and Hu Haizhen splurged the money by buying a large quantity of gold by credit card in Qinhuangdao, Huludao, Tangshan and other places, which was distributed among them. 2006年3月初,被告人李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉预谋绑架被害人石林清勒索钱财。袁南京以帮助他人讨债为由,纠集被告人燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超参与作案。同年3月9日2时许,李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超携带事先准备的作案工具,驾车到石林清位于天津市静海县王口镇郑庄子村的住处,冒充公安人员强行将石林清绑架至山东省泰安市山区的一处住房。李彬、袁南京指派东辉留在天津监视石林清的家属是否报警,指派燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超负责就地看押石林清。尔后,李彬、袁南京、胡海珍分两次向石林清的家属勒索赎金人民币80万元,均让石林清的家属将款打入李彬等人事先开立的信用卡账户中。随后,李彬、袁南京、胡海珍用该款在秦皇岛、葫芦岛、唐山等地以划卡消费的方式购买大量黄金私分、挥霍。
On March 10, 2006, defendants Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao learned that Shi Linqing was not in a debtor-creditor relationship with Li Bin, et al. After Shi Linqing promised to pay them 100,000 yuan, they let him go in the afternoon of the next day. 2006年3月10日,被告人燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超得知被害人石林清与被告人李彬等人根本不存在债务关系,在石林清答应给他们10万元的情况下,于次日下午将石林清放走。
The aforesaid facts were sufficiently proven by the following evidence: victim Shi Linqing's statements, each defendant's confession, witnesses' testimonies, price identification documents, and transcripts about source of case, course of arrest of each defendant and crime scene investigation and relevant photographs provided by the public security organ. 上述事实,有被害人石林清陈述、各被告人供述、证人证言、价格鉴定书、公安机关出具的案件来源、抓获各被告人经过、勘验检查笔录及相关照片予以证实,足以认定。
The No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin City held that: 天津市第一中级人民法院认为:
Defendants Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen and Dong Hui kidnapped another person for the purpose of extorting money or property. Their acts had constituted the crime of kidnapping, punishable according to law. Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing and Hu Haizhen played a major role in the joint crime, so they were principal offenders. Dong Hui played an accessory role in the joint crime, so he was an accomplice and should be given a lighter punishment according to law. 被告人李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉以勒索财物为目的强行绑架他人,其行为已构成绑架罪,应依法予以处罚。李彬、袁南京、胡海珍在共同犯罪中起主要作用,系主犯。东辉在共同犯罪中起次要作用,是从犯,应依法减轻处罚。
Defendants Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao were not involved in the premeditation of kidnapping; instead, they were called in by Yuan Nanjing to help someone else recover debts. However, they had, in fact, illegally held and imprisoned another person, which constituted the crime of false imprisonment punishable according to law. The public prosecutor's accusation that Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Chao Shi extorted 60,000 yuan from Shi Linqing could not be determined for insufficient evidence; and the kidnapping charge against Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao was wrong. Since Liu Chao was under 18 at the time of committing the crime, he should be punished leniently according to law. 被告人燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超未参与绑架犯罪共谋,系受袁南京纠集,出于帮助他人索取债务的目的参与本案犯罪,具体实施了非法扣押、拘禁他人的行为,其行为构成非法拘禁罪,亦应依法予以处罚。公诉机关指控燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超勒索被害人石林清6万元的事实,证据不足,不能认定;指控燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超犯绑架罪不能成立。刘超犯罪时不满 18周岁,应依法从轻处罚。
Hence, according to Articles 239.1, 238.1, 238.3, 25.1, 26.1, 26.4, 27, 17.1, 17.3, 57.1 and 64 of the Criminal Law, the No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin City rendered the following sentence on October 9, 2006: 据此,天津市第一中级人民法院依照刑法第第二百三十九条第一款、第二百三十八条第一款、第三款、第二十五条第一款、第二十六条第一款、第四款、第二十七条、第十七条第一款、第三款、第五十七条第一款、第六十四条之规定,于2006年10月9日判决如下:
1. Defendant Li Bin should be sentenced to life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life and confiscation of all personal property for the crime of kidnapping; defendant Yuan Nanjing should be sentenced to life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life and confiscation of all personal property for the crime of kidnapping; defendant Hu Haizhen should be sentenced to 15-year imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 yuan for the crime of kidnapping; defendant Dong Hui should be sentenced to 8-year imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 yuan for the crime of kidnapping; defendant Yan Yufeng should be sentenced to 3-year imprisonment for the crime of false imprisonment; defendant Liu Shaorong should be sentenced to 2-year imprisonment for the crime of false imprisonment; defendant Liu Yu should be sentenced to 1-year imprisonment for the crime of false imprisonment; and defendant Liu Chao should be sentenced to 8-month imprisonment for the crime of false imprisonment. 一、被告人李彬犯绑架罪,判处无期徒刑,剥夺政治权利终身,并处没收个人全部财产;被告人袁南京犯绑架罪,判处无期徒刑,剥夺政治权利终身,并处没收个人全部财产;被告人胡海珍犯绑架罪,判处有期徒刑十五年,并处罚金人民币10万元;被告人东辉犯绑架罪,判处有期徒刑八年,并处罚金人民币5万元;被告人燕玉峰犯非法拘禁罪,判处有期徒刑三年;被告人刘少荣犯非法拘禁罪,判处有期徒刑二年;被告人刘钰犯非法拘禁罪,判处有期徒刑一年;被告人刘超犯非法拘禁罪,判处有期徒刑八个月。
2. The Santana car used to commit the crime (license plate: Hebei BC3457, frame number: SVAF03343235549) should be confiscated according to law. 二、犯罪工具桑塔纳汽车一辆(车牌照为冀BC3457,车架号为SVAF03343235549)依法没收。
3. The money extorted by the defendants should be continuously recovered and returned to victim Shi Linqing. 三、继续追缴各被告人所得赃款发还被害人石林清。
After the sentence of the first instance was announced, the No. 1 Branch of Tianjin Municipal People's Procuratorate appealed to the Higher People's Court of Tianjin City, alleging that the acts of defendants Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao had constituted the crime of kidnapping, which was wrongly determined in nature in the sentence of the first instance, and the sentence was too light, which should be redressed. 一审宣判后,天津市人民检察院第一分院向天津市高级人民法院提出抗诉,认为原审被告人燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超的行为构成绑架罪,一审定性错误、量刑畸轻,应予纠正。
Yuan Nanjing appealed the sentence of the first instance to the Higher People's Court of Tianjin City, on the ground that he did not take part in the premeditation of kidnapping and the sentence of the first instance was too heavy to him. 袁南京不服一审判决,以没有参与预谋绑架,原审量刑过重为由,向天津市高级人民法院提出上诉。
Through trial of the second instance, the Higher People's Court of Tianjin City was of the opinion that: the sentence of the first trial failed to affirm the fact that defendants Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu and Liu Shaorong extorted and shared 60,000 yuan from Shi Linqing after releasing him, which was an ambiguity in the fact finding. Therefore, in accordance with Article 189 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Higher People's Court of Tianjin City rendered the following ruling on December 20, 2006: 天津市高级人民法院二审认为:起诉书指控原审被告人燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣在将被害人石林清放走后,又向石林清勒索 6万元用于私分挥霍的事实,一审判决未予认定,属认定事实不清。据此,天津市高级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第一百八十九条第(三)项之规定,于 2006年12月20日裁定如下:
1. To quash the criminal sentence of the first instance on this case of the No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin City; and 一、撤销天津市第一中级人民法院就本案作出的第一审刑事判决;
2. To remand the case to the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin City for retrial. 二、将本案发回天津市第一中级人民法院重新审判。
The No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin City formed a new collegial panel according to law to retry the case, and confirmed the facts found in the trial of the first instance. The court also found that: victim Shi Linqing was watched by defendants Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao after he was abducted to a shelter in a mountainous area of Taian City, Shandong Province. On March 11, 2006, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao realized in conversation with Shi Linqing that the victim was not in any debtor-creditor relationship with Li Bin, et al. Shi Linqing implored them to let him go, and promised them some benefits. After discussion, the said defendants set free the victim. Later, Yan Yufeng, Liu Shaorong and Liu Yu, together with Liu Chuan (handled in a separate case), called Shi Linqing many times for the promised money. Fearing for their retaliation, Shi Linqing deposited 60,000 yuan into the account specified by them. Yan Yufeng, Liu Shaorong, Liu Yu and Liu Chuan shared and squandered the money. 天津市第一中级人民法院经依法另行组成合议庭重新审判,确认了原一审查明的事实。另查明:被害人石林清被绑架至山东省泰安市山区的一处住房后,由被告人燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超负责看押。2006年3月11日,燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超在与石林清交谈中,得知石林清与被告人李彬等人根本不存在债务关系。石林清请求上述被告人放了自己,并承诺给予好处,上述被告人经商议,将石林清放走。其后,燕玉峰、刘少荣、刘钰伙同刘川(另案处理)多次打电话向石林清催要钱款,石林清因害怕再次遭到他们的报复、便向燕玉峰等人指定的账户内打入人民币6万元。燕玉峰、刘少荣、刘钰和刘川将该款私分、挥霍。
The focal dispute in this case was: how to determine the nature of the acts of defendants Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao. 本案的争议焦点是:被告人燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超的行为应当如何定性。
The No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin City held that: 天津市第一中级人民法院认为:
Defendants Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen and Dong Hui kidnapped another person for the purpose of extorting money or property. Their acts had constituted the crime of kidnapping punishable according to law. Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing and Hu Haizhen played a major role in the joint crime, so they were principal offenders. Dong Hui played an accessory role in the joint crime, so he was an accomplice who should be given a lighter punishment according to law. 被告人李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉以勒索财物为目的强行绑架他人,其行为已构成绑架罪,应依法予以处罚。李彬、袁南京、胡海珍在共同犯罪中起主要作用,系主犯。东辉在共同犯罪中起次要作用,是从犯,应依法减轻处罚。
According to Article 25 of the Criminal Law, a joint crime was an intentional crime jointly committed by two or more persons, each and all of whom must have the intent to commit a joint crime. The intent to commit a joint crime meant that by communication of intent between them, every joint offender knew that he was cooperating with others in committing the crime, knew the nature of the joint crime and the harms to the society resulting from the crime, and hoped for or recklessly allowed the occurrence of such consequences. If an offender, unaware of the real criminal intent of others and the nature of the criminal acts committed by others, had taken part in the crime committed by others with a wrong belief about the nature of the crime as a result of deception by others or misunderstanding on his own part, he should not be deemed to have committed a joint crime with others. Instead, he should be properly convicted and punished according to the actual crime committed, under the principle of consistency between subjective and objective elements. In this case, defendants Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao did not take part in the premeditation of kidnapping with other defendants, Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen and Dong Hui. They were called in by Yuan Nanjing, and wrongly believed that they were helping someone else recover debts. For this purpose, they illegally held and imprisoned another person. So, the acts of Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao did not constitute the joint crime of kidnapping. Rather, they should be convicted of and punished for the crime of false imprisonment according to Article 238.3 of the Criminal Law. After Shi Linqing's release, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu and Liu Shaorong together with Liu Chuan extorted a large amount of money from the victim under duress, which had constituted the crime of extortion punished according to law. 根据刑法二十五条的规定,共同犯罪是指二人以上共同故意犯罪,各共同犯罪人必须具有共同犯罪的故意。所谓共同犯罪的故意,是指各共同犯罪人通过意思联络,知道自己是和他人配合共同实施犯罪,认识到共同犯罪行为的性质以及该行为所导致的危害社会的结果,并且希望或者放任这种结果的发生。如果行为人并不了解他人真正的犯罪意图,不清楚他人所实施的犯罪行为的性质,而是被他人蒙骗或者出于自己的错误认识,在错误理解犯罪性质的情况下参与他人实施的犯罪,则不能认定该行为人与他人实施了共同犯罪,而应当依据该行为人的犯罪实际情况,按照主客观一致的原则正确定罪处罚。本案中,被告人燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超事先并未参与被告人李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉合谋实施绑架犯罪,是在袁南京的纠集下,误认为是帮助他人索取债务,并基于该目的而实施了非法扣押、拘禁他人的犯罪行为。故燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超的行为不构成绑架共同犯罪,而应当依照刑法二百三十八条第三款的规定,以非法拘禁罪定罪处罚。燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣在将被害人石林清放回后,又伙同刘川以胁迫手段向石林清索取巨额钱款,其行为构成敲诈勒索罪,应依法予以处罚。
To sum up, the public prosecution organ's criminal charges against Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen, Dong Hui, Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao were supported by clear facts and sufficient evidence. Its kidnapping charges against Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing, Hu Haizhen and Dong Hui were correct and should be affirmed, but its kidnapping charges against Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu, Liu Shaorong and Liu Chao were improper. The acts of Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu and Liu Shaorong had each constituted the crime of false imprisonment and the crime of extortion, and each of them should be subject to the joinder of punishment for plural crimes. Liu Chao's acts had also constituted the crime of illegal detention punishable according to law. Li Bin, Yuan Nanjing and Hu Haizhen, who played a major role in the joint crime, were the principal offenders, so each of them should be punished for all crimes that he had participated in. Playing an accessory role in the joint crime, Dong Hui was an accomplice who should be given a lighter punishment according to law. Yan Yufeng, Liu Yu and Liu Shaorong, who played a major role in both the joint crime of false imprisonment and the joint crime of extortion, were principal offenders, so each of them should be punished for all crimes that he had participated in. Liu Chao, who was an accomplice for his accessory role in the joint crime of false imprisonment and was under 18 at the time of committing the crime, should be exempted from punishment according to law. Hence, in accordance with Articles 239.1, 238.1, 238.3, 274, 69, 25.1, 26.1, 26.4, 27, 17.1, 17.3, 57.1, 37 and 64 of the Criminal Law, the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin City rendered the following sentence on April 24, 2007: 综上,公诉机关指控被告人李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉、燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超犯罪的事实清楚,证据充分;指控李彬、袁南京、胡海珍、东辉犯有绑架罪正确,应予确认;指控燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣、刘超犯有绑架罪不当。燕玉峰、刘钰、刘少荣的行为均构成非法拘禁罪、敲诈勒索罪,应依法实行数罪并罚。刘超的行为已构成非法拘禁罪,亦应依法予以处罚。李彬、袁南京、胡海珍在共同犯罪中起主要作用,系主犯,应根据其各自参与的全部犯罪依法分别予以处罚。东辉在共同犯罪中起次要作用,系从犯,应依法予以减轻处罚。燕玉峰、刘珏、刘少荣在非法拘禁和敲诈勒索共同犯罪中均起主要作用,系主犯,应根据其参与的全部犯罪依法分别予以处罚。刘超在非法拘禁共同犯罪中起辅助作用,系从犯,且其犯罪时未满18周岁,依法应免除处罚。据此,天津市第一中级人民法院依照刑法第第二百三十九条第一款,第二百三十八条第一款、第三款,第二百七十四条,第六十九条,第二十五条第一款,第二十六条第一款、第四款,第二十七条,第十七条第一款、第三款,第五十七条第一款,第三十七条和第六十四条之规定,于2007年4月24日判决如下:
1. Defendant Li Bin should be sentenced to life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life and confiscation of all personal property for the crime of kidnapping; defendant Yuan Nanjing should be sentenced to life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life and confiscation of all personal property for the crime of kidnapping; defendant Hu Haizhen should be sentenced to 15-year imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 yuan (to be paid within one month after the effective date of this sentence) for the crime of kidnapping; defendant Dong Hui should be sentenced to 8-year imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 yuan (to be paid within one month after the effective date of this sentence) for the crime of kidnapping; defendant Yan Yufeng should be sentenced to 4-year imprisonment for the crime of extortion and 2-year imprisonment for the crime of false imprisonment, and it was decided that a total of 5-year imprisonment should be executed; defendant Liu Shaorong should be sentenced to 3-year imprisonment for the crime of extortion and 1-year imprisonment for the crime of false imprisonment, and it was decide that a total of 3-year imprisonment should be executed; defendant Liu Yu should be sentenced to 3-year imprisonment for the crime of extortion and 1-year imprisonment for the crime of false imprisonment, and it was decided that a total of 3-year imprisonment should be executed; and defendant Liu Chao should be exempted from criminal punishment for the crime of false imprisonment. 一、被告人李彬犯绑架罪,判处无期徒刑,剥夺政治权利终身,并处没收个人全部财产;被告人袁南京犯绑架罪,判处无期徒刑,剥夺政治权利终身,并处没收个人全部财产;被告人胡海珍犯绑架罪,判处有期徒刑十五年,并处罚金人民币10万元(于判决生效后一个月内缴纳);被告人东辉犯绑架罪,判处有期徒刑八年,并处罚金人民币 5万元(于判决生效后一个月内缴纳);被告人燕玉峰犯敲诈勒索罪,判处有期徒刑四年;犯非法拘禁罪,判处有期徒刑二年,决定执行有期徒刑五年;被告人刘少荣犯敲诈勒索罪,判处有期徒刑三年,犯非法拘禁罪,判处有期徒刑一年,决定执行有期徒刑三年;被告人刘钰犯敲诈勒索罪,判处有期徒刑三年,犯非法拘禁罪,判处有期徒刑一年,决定执行有期徒刑三年;被告人刘超犯非法拘禁罪,免予刑事处罚。
2. The Santana car used to commit the crime (license plate: Hebei RC3457, frame number: LSVAF03343235549) should be confiscated according to law. 二、犯罪工具桑塔纳汽车(车牌号为冀 RC3457,车架号为LSVAF03343235549)一辆依法没收。
3. The money extorted by the defendants should be continuously recovered and returned to the victim. 三、继续追缴各被告人所得赃款发还被害人。
Yuan Nanjing and Liu Yu appealed the sentence of the first instance rendered again by the No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin City to the Higher People's Court of Tianjin City. During the trial of the second instance, Yuan Nanjing and Liu Yu applied to withdraw their appeals. 袁南京、刘钰不服天津市第一中级人民法院重新审判作出的一审判决,向天津市高级人民法院提出上诉。二审审理过程中,袁南京、刘钰又申请撤回上诉。
JUDGMENT 
The Higher People's Court of Tianjin City held that: 天津市高级人民法院二审认为:
In the sentence of the first instance, the facts were clear, evidence was reliable and sufficient, convictions were correct and punishments were proper, and the trial procedures of the first instance were legal. In accordance with Articles 239 and 244 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China, this court ruled on June 19, 2007: 一审判决认定事实清楚,证据确实、充分,定罪准确,量刑适当,审判程序合法。依照《最高人民法院关于执行<中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法>若干问题的解释》第二百三十九条、第二百四十四条之规定,于2007年6月19日裁定如下:
To grant the withdrawal of appeal by appellants Yuan Nanjing and Liu Yu. 准许上诉人袁南京、刘钰撤回上诉。
This ruling should be final.

 本裁定为终审裁定。
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese