>>>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
Larceny Case Involving HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong (Larceny Case)
  • Type of Dispute: Criminal-->Property Infringement
  • Legal document: Ruling
  • Judgment date: 01-29-2000
  • Procedural status: Death Penalty Review
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 2,2000

Larceny Case Involving HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong (Larceny Case)
(Larceny Case)

Larceny Case Involving HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong



Prosecutor: the People's Procuratorate of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province 公诉机关:江苏省扬州市人民检察院。
The accused: l HAO Jingwen, male, age 31, resident of Zhenjiang City (Jiangsu Province), jobless, arrested on October 30, 1998. 被告人:郝景文,男,31岁,江苏省镇江市人,无业。1998年10月30日被逮捕。
Defence lawyer: Mr. XU Xiang, attorney with Yinhe Law Office, Zhenjiang City 辩护人:徐祥,江苏镇江银河律师事务所律师。
l HAO Jinglong, male, aged 35, brother of HAO Jingwen, resident of Zhenjiang city, former employee of Huashanwan Banking Office of Zhongshanlu Branch Office, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Zhenjiang Branch (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), arrested on October 30, 1998 被告人:郝景龙,男,35岁,江苏省镇江市人,原系中国工商银行镇江市分行中山路办事处花山湾分理处职员。1998年10月30日被逮捕。
Defence lawyer:l Mr. ZHANG Xiaoling, attorney with Zhongshan Law Office of , Nanjing City 辩护人:张晓陵,江苏南京中山律师事务所律师。
The People's Procuratorate of Yangzhou City brought an indictment in the Intermediate People's Court of Yangzhou against the two accused for the crime of larceny. 江苏省扬州市人民检察院以被告人郝景文、郝景龙犯盗窃罪,向江苏省扬州市中级人民法院提起公诉。
It was alleged that the two accused committed the following offenses: With the intention to commit theft, HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong used a self-made device to intrude into the computing system of the Bank and took 720,000 RMB from the Bank. They later withdrew RMB 260,000, of which HAO Jingwen took RMB 135,000 and HAO Jinglong took RMB 125,000. After their crime was detected, RMB 232,657.67 in stolen cash and RMB 13,000 in goods were recovered. In addition, HAO Jingwen, by himself or in collaboration with others, committed six acts of larceny in Zhenjiang and other places. The value of property stolen was extremely high. The acts of HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong constituted criminal larceny as defined in Articles 287 and 264. Both individuals were principal offenders, but HAO Jinglong performed some meritorious services to atone for his crime. The Court was requested to render a judgement according to law. 起诉书指控:被告人郝景文、郝景龙兄弟以非法占有为目的,利用私制的装置侵入银行计算机系统,窃取银行资金72万元,随后实际支取26万元,郝景文得赃款13.5万元,郝景龙得赃款12.5万元。案发后追缴赃款232657.67元和用赃款购买的价值1.3万余元的物品。此外,郝景文还单独或伙同他人在镇江等地盗窃作案6起,窃取财物数额特别巨大。郝景文、郝景龙的行为触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百八十七条、第二百六十四条的规定,构成盗窃罪。二人均系主犯,郝景龙在犯罪后有立功表现。请依法判处。
HAO Jingwen did not object to the charges against him, but insisted that his actions constituted fraud, but not larceny. He also disclosed information before the Court at the hearing of other criminal suspects. His defence lawyer contended that the nature of the crime committed through the use computer technology by HAO Jingwen should be considered fraud instead of larceny. The lawyer also claimed that there was not sufficient proof to support the charge against HAO Jingwen that he stole one Ford car, one motorbike, computer processors and keyboards. Therefore, the charges could not be ascertained by the Court. In addition, HAO Jingwen had performed meritorious services to atone for his crime by disclosing other criminal suspects during the court hearing. 被告人郝景文对起诉书指控的事实没有异议,但认为对其利用计算机作案的行为应认定为诈骗罪。郝景文还当庭检举揭发他人犯罪。郝景文的辩护人认为,对郝景文利用计算机作案的行为应认定为诈骗;还认为,郝景文单位或伙同他人盗窃“福特”面包车1辆、光阳豪爽125太子摩托车1辆和盗窃电脑主机、键盘等3项指控的证据不足,不能认定;郝景文能当庭检举揭发他人犯罪,是立功表现。
HAO Jinglong also did not object to the charges brought against him. But he, too, insisted that he had committed only fraud, not larceny. He also claimed that he not only had performed meritorious services, but also had made voluntary confessions to the Court. His defence lawyer contended that HAO Jinglong committed only the offence of fraud, and that neither of the two offenders should be treated as a principal offender. For his meritorious services and voluntary confessions, the punishment to be meted out to him should be mitigated accordingly. 被告人郝景龙也对起诉书指控的事实没有异议,但认为对其行为应认定诈骗罪,还提出自己不仅有重大立功表现,还有自首情节。郝景龙的辩护人认为,郝景龙的行为只构成诈骗罪;本案不应当认定两被告人都是主犯;郝景龙犯罪后有自首和重大立功表现,应当减轻处罚。
The following facts were verified and established by the Court: 扬州市中级人民法院经审理查明:
During June and July 1998, HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong, unable to make ends meet, decided to steal money from the Bank by intruding into the Bank's computing system. They planned to connect their computer with that of the Bank through a telephone line via a modem. HAO Jinglong instructed HAO Jingwen to buy two modems in Nanjing and one remote-control device in Yangzhou. Then HAO Jinglong converted these items into a device to be used for intruding into the computing system of the Bank. HAO Jingwen made several trips to Yangzhou, where, as a normal client, he visited some savings offices of the Branch Office of the Bank to observe the environment there. At the end of August, HAO Jingwen rented a house under a false name at Wangzhuang, Shuangqiao Village in the suburbs of Yangzhou, and had an telephone extension installed there. On September 7, HAO Jingwen opened sixteen savings accounts under false names at Baihe Savings Office of the Branch Office of Hanjiang County of the Bank. Meanwhile, HAO Jinglong made and tried out the intrusion device, and taught HAO jingwen how to use it. At dawn on September 18, HAO Jingwen tried with a saw to cut the iron window bars of Baihe Savings Office, but failed. He then blocked the keyhole in the door with glue in hopes that the lock would be replaced. At dawn on September 22, he went to the Savings Office again and opened the lock with a key he had made. Once inside, he connected one part of the intrusion device with the computer of the Savings Office. About 9 o'clock that morning, HAO Jinglong brought the other part of the device from Zhenjing to their rented house. Around 12 o'clock, HAO Jingwen returned to the Savings Office, and, at HAO Jianglong's instructions, activated the remote-control of the intrusion device. From 12: 32 to 12:42, HAO Jinglong used the computer inside the house, which was connected to that of the Bank, to transfer RMB 720.000 to the sixteen false accounts as deposits into personal savings. Later, from 12:50 to 14:06, HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong withdrew RMB 260,000 from different Savings Offices of the Bank in Yangzhou. When they tried to withdraw RMB 40,000 from Wenhe Savings Office, they were asked for identification. Afraid of being detected, they escaped back to Zhenjiang. HAO Jingwen got RMB 135,000 and HAO Jinglong got RMB 125,000. After their crime was detected, RMB 232,657.67 was recovered together with one computer processor, two monitors, one micro-wave oven and one colour TV set.The above facts were supported by the testimony of witnesses. Mr. WU Zhenyuan and Mr. LI jiang, two witnesses, testified at the hearing: HAO Jingwen rented one of their houses at the end of August, 1998, and had a telephone extension installed inside the house. Mr. HONG Guangquan, another witness, testified: On the morning of September 18, 1998, the employees of Baihe Savings Office could not open the door of their Office, and, later, had to change the lock. 1998年6-7月间,被告人郝景龙、郝景文兄弟因经济拮据,计议使用调制解调器通过电话线将自己使用的计算机与银行的计算机系统连通,侵入银行的储蓄网点计算机系统进行盗窃。郝景龙指使郝景文在南京购得调制解调器2只,在扬州购得遥控玩具1只,由郝景龙将其改制成侵入银行计算机系统的装置。郝景文多次到扬州,通过在中国工商银行扬州市分行(以下简称扬州工行)系统数个储蓄所办理存、取款的方式进行观察。8月下旬,郝景文在扬州市郊区双桥乡双桥村王庄村民组,以吕俊昌的名义租赁房屋1间,并在该房内连接电话分机1部。9月7日,郝景文以吕俊昌、王君等16个假名,在中国工商银行邗江县支行白鹤储蓄所开立16个活期存款帐户。其间,郝景龙制作、调试了侵入银行计算机系统装置,并向郝景文传授安装方法。9月18日凌晨,郝景文到白鹤储蓄所,想用钢锯锯断窗户上的铁条进入该所安装侵入银行计算机系统装置的一部分,因未锯断,遂用“502”胶水将卷帘门的锁孔堵死,以迫使该所更换门锁。9月22日凌晨,郝景文又到白鹤储蓄所,使用自配的钥匙打开锁秘密潜入,将侵入银行计算机系统装置的一部分与该所计算机连接。当日上午9时许,郝景龙携带另一部分装置从镇江来到郝景文在扬州租赁的房内。12时许,郝景文到白鹤储蓄所,并与郝景龙取得联系。郝景龙指使郝景文打开侵入银行计算机系统装置的遥控开关。12时32分至12时42分,郝景龙在郝景文租赁的房屋内通过操作计算机,从白鹤储蓄所往来帐上分别向以吕俊昌、王君等假名开立的16个活期存款帐户各输入存款4.5万元,共计72万元。嗣后,郝景龙、郝景文从12时50分至14时06分,利用银行的通存通兑业务,在扬州工行下设的瘦西湖、国庆北路、史可法路、沿河、解放桥、跃进桥、琼花、仙鹤等8个储蓄网点取款计26万元。当郝景文、郝景龙到汶河储蓄所要求支取4万元时,因该所工作人员要求查验身份证,郝景文、郝景龙唯恐罪行败露,遂逃回镇江市。郝景文分得赃款13.5万元,郝景龙分得赃款12.5万元。案发后,侦查机关追缴赃款232657.67元以及用赃款购买的计算机主机及万普显示器2台、格兰仕微波炉1台、TCL牌74厘米彩色电视机1台等物,均已发还被窃单位。
Mr. SUN Fan also testified that when he arrived at the Office on the morning of September 22, 1998, he found the iron bars on the window had been cut, and that a telephone wire had been connected to the main line of the Office. He further testified that, when the Office was closed around 4:30 in the afternoon of September 18, he found that RMB 720,000 had been transferred to the sixteen accounts opened on September 7, each transfer being 45,000 RMB.Witnesses from the different savings offices of the Banks also testified that from 13:00 to 14:06, a man, using the savings accounts opened at Baihe Savings Offices, withdrew from their respective offices sums of money varying from RMB 10,000 to RMB 40,000. And, when asked to provide his ID card, the man said that he did not have it on hand, and left without withdrawing any money from the Wenhe Savings Office. 公诉人对上述事实,当庭宣读了证人证言。证人吴镇元、李江的证词证实:1998年9月22日,被告人郝景龙没有上班。证人王家朝的证词证实:1998年8月下旬,被告人郝景文以吕俊昌的名义租住其房屋1间,并装了一部电话分机。证人洪广全的证词证实:1998年9月18日上午白鹤储蓄所的人员上班时,发现钥匙无法插入卷帘门的锁孔,门开不下来,后想办法将门打开,并重新换了卷帘门的锁。证人孙帆的证词证实:1998年9月18日其上班时,发现储蓄所窗户被锯,窗户上挂了一根电线,这根电线和粗主线接在一起;孙帆还证实:1998年9月22日下午4时30分白鹤储蓄所结帐时,发现往来帐上有72万元转入到1998年9月7日在白鹤储蓄所开户的16个活期存款帐户上,每个帐户是4.5万元。证人张富叶、陶明辉、王定年、王玫、吴健、王润青、朱世荣、卜承庆、钱禾的证词,分别证实了1998年9月22日下午1时左右至2时06分,有一男子持户名为吕俊昌、郭宝连、胡爱明、李军、江峰、李健军等在白鹤储蓄所开户的活期存折,从瘦西湖储蓄所取走3万元、国庆北路分路分理处取走4万元、史可法路储蓄所取走3万元、沿河储蓄所取走1万元、解放桥储蓄所取走4万元、跃进桥储蓄所取走4万元、琼花分理处取走4万元、仙鹤储畜所取走3万元,以及到汶河储蓄所要求支取4万元,当向其索要身份证时,这名男子讲没有身份证,钱未能取走的情况。
At the hearing, the prosecutor presented photos of the wireless telephone set, the stable voltage source, modems, power plugs, self-made remote-control devices, computer cables, adhesive tape, computer keyboard, monitor, telephone, computer CPU, sunglasses, an electric iron, a saw, a key, glue, a screwdriver and a briefcase.The prosecutor also presented the poster advertisement for the rental of a house equipped with a telephone in Yangzhou. Other evidence presented at the Court included: bank drafts written under false names during August and September 1998, bank documents for the opening of sixteen false accounts at Baihe Savings Office on September 7, 1998, and nine bank slips for the withdrawal of RMB 260,000 from the savings offices of the Bank on September 22, 1998. 公诉人当庭出示了无绳电话底座、配套专用稳压电源、调制解调器、电源插座、自制遥控装置、电脑电缆线、胶带纸、电脑键盘、计算机主机、显示器、电话机、电脑硬盘、变色眼镜、电烙铁、锯条、钥匙、502胶水、起子、大哥大皮包等作案工具的照片;出示了以吕俊昌、吕先生之名在扬州求租带有电话的住房1间的招帖,1998年8月至9月在扬州数个储蓄所内留下的写有王君、吕俊昌名字的存取款凭条,1998年9月7日以吕俊昌、王君、陈健武、张涛、夏兵、陈军、王建明、胡强、李强、李建军、江峰、鲁明、李军、胡爱明、杨建军、郭宝连名义在白鹤储蓄所开立16个存款帐户的凭条,以及1998年9月22日在扬州工行下设的瘦西湖、国庆北路、史可法路、沿河、解放桥、跃进桥、琼花、仙鹤、汶河等9个储蓄网点取款26万元的9张取款凭条。
The prosecutor presented to the Court expert reports certifying the authenticity of the physical evidence presented by him. Expert authenticators verified that the handwriting on the note for renting the house and on the bank bills was that of HAO Jingwen. It was further verified that the fingerprint on the 6cm adhesive tape found in Baihe Savings Office on September 22, 1998 was that of the index finger of HAO Jingwen's left hand. Moreover, the site investigation report and photos also proved that HAO Jingwen secretly connected part of the intrusion device with the computing system of Baihe Savings Office. 公诉人当庭宣读的扬州市公安局(98)公刑文字第30号物证鉴定书证实:署名“吕先生”的求租房招贴字迹以及当庭出示的储蓄存、取款凭条上的字迹,均系被告人郝景文所写。公诉人当庭宣读的扬州市公安局(98)公刑痕字第7号物证鉴定书证实:1998年9月22日在白鹤储蓄所案件现场6cm宽的淡黄色胶带纸胶面上所提取的指纹,系郝景文左手食指所留。公诉人当庭出示的现场勘查笔录和现场照片证实:郝景文秘密将部分侵入银行计算机系统装置安置在白鹤储蓄所,并与银行计算机系统相连接。
The aforementioned evidence was examined at the hearing and was not objected to by the two accused or their defence lawyers. This evidence, therefore, may serve as the basis of the court's findings of facts. 上述证据经过庭审质证,被告人郝景文、郝景龙及其辩护人均未提出异议,能够作为认定事实的根据。郝景文、郝景龙对事实的供述,能够与以上证据相互印证。
In addition, the evidence was also consistent with the confessions of HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong.Apart from this act of larceny, HAO Jingwen committed four instances of larceny between January 1995 and September 1996. With ZHANG Jun ( charged in another case) and CAO Feng (free at large), he stole a Ford car valued at RMB 340,000 from the Branch Office of Agricultural Bank of China in Dantu County. Later, they sold the car at RMB 100,000, of which HAO Jingwen got RMB 26,000. On his own, he stole RMB 12,000 from Wanmei Department Store in Zhenjiang, and twice broke into Jinshan Pawnshop and stole RMB 5,000 and seven pagers. 此外,从1995年1月至1996年9月,被告人郝景文采用复制汽车钥匙、爬窗入室撬抽屉、用气割枪割保险柜等手段行窃4次。其中,伙同张军(另案处理)、曹峰(在逃)盗窃丹徒县农业银行价值34万元的“福特”牌面包车一辆,销赃得款10万元,郝景文分得赃款2.6万元;单独在镇江市万美商场盗窃1次,窃得1.2万余元;单独在镇江市南门大街金山典当行盗窃2次,窃得5000元和各类寻呼机7只。
The above four offences of larceny were proven by testimony of witnesses, an expert authentication report made by the Zhenjiang Price Evaluation Office, records and photos of on-the-spot investigation, case report forms, list of articles stolen and one oxygen cylinder that HAO Jingwen left at the scene. This evidence was cross-examined and not objected to by either of the accused, and, therefore, served as the basis of the court's findings of facts. HAO Jingwen also confessed to these offences. 以上事实,有证人蒋志干、吴惠琴、王希捷对被窃情况的证明;有镇江市价格事务所的估价鉴定结论书,有现场勘查笔录、现场照片、报警案件登记表、被窃财产清单以及郝景文遗留在现场用于作案的氧气瓶这一物证的照片等证实。上述证据经庭审质证没有异议,均可以作为认定事实的根据。郝景文对以上事实也供认不讳。
The Court hereby reasons as follows: 扬州市中级人民法院认为:
The charge against HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong for stealing RMB 260,000 from the Bank and the charge against HAO Jingwen for stealing one Ford car from the Agricultural Bank of China, RMB 12,000 from Wanmei Department Store, and RMB 5,000 plus seven pagers from Jinshan Pawnshop were supported and verified by facts and sufficient evidence. They should, therefore, be maintained by the Court.The prosecutor also charged that HAO Jingwen, with CAO Feng, stole a motor bike from Mr. ZHU Lei during Spring Festival 1995. However, the statement of ZHU Lei and the confession of HAO Jingwen did not match each other with regard to the time and place of the act, and the type of motor bike. The prosecutor further charged that, one night in April 1997, HAO Jingwen broke into the Office Automation Company of the Metal Corporation in Runzhou District, Zhenjiang and stole two computer processors and two keyboards. However, these charges were substantiated only by the confession of HAO Jingwen. These two charges could not be verified by the Court due to insufficient evidence. The Court accepts the defence made by his defence lawyer on these two charges, but refused to accept the defence on the charge of stealing the Ford car. 起诉书指控被告人郝景文、郝景龙盗窃银行资金26万元,郝景文还单独或伙同他人盗窃丹徒县农业银行“福特”面包车1辆、镇江市万美商场1.2万余元、镇江市金山典当行5000元及寻呼机7只,事实清楚,证据确实充分,应予认定。起诉书指控“1995年春节期间,郝景文伙同曹峰盗窃朱雷的光阳豪爽125太子摩托车1辆”,虽有郝景文的供述和失主朱雷的陈述,但作案时间、地点与被窃摩托车的型号,供述和陈述不相一致;指控“1997年4月的一天深夜,郝景文盗窃镇江市三官塘1号原镇江市润州区金属材料总公司下设的办公自动化公司386、486电脑主机各1台、键盘2只”,仅有郝景文供述,无其他证据证实;这两项指控因证据不足,不予认定。郝景文的辩护人提出不应认定这两项指控的辩护意见,经查属实,应予采纳;该辩护人提出“指控郝景文伙同他人盗窃‘福特'面包车1辆证据不足”的辩护意见,不予采纳。
HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong, with theft as their motive, intruded secretly into the computing system of the Bank by using a self-made device, and stole an extremely great amount of money. Their act constitutes a crime of larceny under Article 287 of the Penal Code of the People's Republic of China, and they should be sentenced in accordance with Article 264(1) of the Code. HAO Jingwen also committed another four serious acts of larceny and therefore should be sentenced in accordance with the same article. The two men committed a joint and intentional offence under Article 25(1) of the Code. Both of them played a principal role in the crime, and, therefore, should be regarded as principal offenders according to Article 26(1) of the Code, and should be sentenced for the entire crime committed according to Article 26(4). HAO Jinglong disclosed other serious larceny offences committed by HAO Jingwen, and thus performed a meritorious service, which should count towards lessening his punishment. 被告人郝景文、郝景龙以非法占有为目的,私制侵入银行计算机系统装置,秘密侵入银行计算机系统盗窃银行资金,数额特别巨大,其行为触犯了刑法二百八十七条的规定,构成盗窃罪,应当依照刑法我能说我还比较喜欢洗碗吗二百六十四条第(一)项的规定量刑。郝景文还单独或伙同他人盗窃作案4起,数额特别巨大,也应当依照刑法二百六十四条的规定定罪量刑。依照刑法二十五条第一款的规定,郝景文、郝景龙是共同故意犯罪;二人在共同故意犯罪中均起主要作用,依照刑法二十六条老婆觉得我剪头发浪费钱第一款的规定,都是主犯,都应当依照刑法二十六条第四款的规定,按照其所参与的全部犯罪处罚。郝景龙检举郝景文有其他重大盗窃行为,经查证属实,依照刑法六十八条第一款的规定,是立功表现,对其应从轻处罚。
HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong secretly intruded into the computing system of the Bank, and secretly transferred RMB 720,000 from the Bank to their own accounts. Even though they withdrew some of the money from the Bank in public places, such actions were only the continuation of their secret act of larceny. The nature of secrecy is invalidates their claim that the crime they committed is that of fraud. 被告人郝景文、郝景龙是采用秘密的方法将自制的侵入银行计算机系统装置与金融机构的计算机连通后,秘密地将银行资金72万元转入其事先开立的个人活期存款帐户,从而非法地占有了这72万元资金。二人虽然是在公开场合到其他储蓄网点取出款,但这只是秘密窃取资金行为的延续,并不能改变该资金被非法占有时的秘密窃取性质。郝景文、郝景龙及其辩护人提出“应定诈骗罪”的意见,不能成立。
HAO Jingwen also disclosed other serious crimes. But these crimes could not be verified by the Court. Therefore, the so-called meritorious service claimed by his defence lawyer could not be affirmed by the court. 被告人郝景文当庭提交的检举揭发材料,经公安机关查证后不能成立。郝景文的辩护人据此要求认定郝景文有立功行为的辩护意见,不能成立。
HAO Jinglong confessed his crimes only after acts of larceny were detected and after he was summoned to the police station and interrogated by the police. His was not a voluntary appearance before the police as defined in Article 67 of the Penal Code. By telling the police that HAO Jingwen was hiding in his home, HAO Jingwen confessed his crime, but did not assist the Police to arrest the accomplice. Therefore, the Court refused to accept the defence made by HAO Jinglong's defence lawyer that HAO Jinglong had appeared voluntarily before the police, and had helped the police to locate the offender. 被告人郝景龙是在其犯罪事实已被公安机关发觉,将其传唤至公安机关进行讯问后,才供述了犯罪事实。刑法六十七条规定:“犯罪以后自动投案,如实供述自己的罪行的,是自首。”郝景龙虽如实供述了自己的罪行,但不是自动投案,不符合自首的条件。至于郝景龙交待了郝景文藏匿在其家中,是其如实供述犯罪事实的表现之一,并非协助侦查机关抓获同案犯。郝景龙及其辩护人提出“郝景龙的行为属自首,且协助公安机关抓获同案犯郝景文”的辩解、辩护意见,不能成立。
It is not stipulated in the Penal Code that there should be only one principal offender in a crime. HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong jointly planned and co-operated actively and closely in committing the crime. Both of them played a principal role in the crime, and both should be regarded as principal offenders. The Court refused to accept the defence of HAO Jinglong's attorney that the Court should not deem both of them to be principal offenders. 刑法并没有一起共同犯罪中只能认定一名主犯的规定。被告人郝景文、郝景龙共同计议并按照分工密切配合、积极实施盗窃行为,二人在共同故意犯罪中均起了主要作用,均系主犯。郝景龙的辩护人提出“本案不应认定两被告人都是主犯”的辩护意见,不能成立。
In summary, the Court hereby renders the following judgement, in accordance with Articles 56(1), 57(1), 59 and 64 of the Code: 综上,扬州市中级人民法院依照刑法第第五十六条第一款、第五十七条第一款、第五十九条、第六十四条的规定,于1999年11月22日判决:
1. For committing the crime of larceny, HAO Jingwen is sentenced to the death penalty, permanent deprivation of political rights and forfeiture of RMB 50,000 of his individual property; 一、被告人郝景文犯盗窃罪,判处死刑,剥夺政治权利终身,并处没收财产5万元。
2. For committing the crime of larceny, HAO Jinglong is sentenced to life imprisonment, permanent deprivation of political rights, and forfeiture of RMB 30,000 of his individual property; 二、被告人郝景龙犯盗窃罪,判处无期徒刑,剥夺政治权利终身,并处没收财产3万元。
3. Their 24 tools, including the wireless telephone base and the modems for criminal purposes, are confiscated. 三、作案工具无绳电话底座、调制解调器等24件物品,予以没收。
HAO Jingwen and HAO Jinglong, refusing to accept the judgement rendered by the Court of first instance, filed an appeal in the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province on the same grounds as in the original case. 第一审宣判后,被告人郝景文、郝景龙不服,仍以一审时的辩解理由提出上诉。
The High Court, after reviewing the case, believed that the Court of the first instance had verified the facts correctly on the basis of sufficient evidences; that the conviction and the sentence were both appropriate; and that the judgement was also procedurally sound. Their rational for appeal was deemed untenable. Therefore, the Higher Court rendered the following decision, on January 29, 2000, in accordance with Article 189 (1) of the Code: 江苏省高级人民法院经审理认为,一审认定二上诉人的犯罪事实清楚,证据确实、充分,定罪准确,量刑适当,审判程序合法。上诉人郝景文、郝景龙以非法占有为目的,私制侵入银行计算机系统装置盗窃银行资金,数额特别巨大,另外郝景文还单独或伙同他人盗窃作案4起,数额也特别巨大,二上诉人的行为均已构成盗窃罪,其上诉理由均不能成立,不予采纳。据此,江苏省高级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第一百八十九条第(一)项的规定,于2000年1月29日裁定:
The appeal is dismissed and the judgement of the Court of the first instance is maintained. 驳回上诉,维持原判。
In accordance with the Notice of the People's Supreme Court on Authorising the Higher People's Court and the Military Court to Approve Some of the Death Penalty, this decision also serves as an approval for the Death Penalty against HAO Jingwen, for the crime of larceny. 根据《最高人民法院关于授权高级人民法院和解放军军事法院核准部分死刑案件的通知》的规定,江苏省高级人民法院的这一裁定并为核准以盗窃罪判处郝景文死刑,剥夺政治权利终身的刑事裁定。


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