>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Notice by the Supreme People's Court of Issuing the Nineteenth Group of Guiding Cases [Effective]
最高人民法院关于发布第19批指导性案例的通知 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Notice by the Supreme People's Court of Issuing the Nineteenth Group of Guiding Cases 

最高人民法院关于发布第19批指导性案例的通知

(No. 338 [2018] of the Supreme People's Court) (法〔2018〕338号)

The higher people's courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Court of the People's Liberation Army; and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous: 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院,解放军军事法院,新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院:
Upon deliberation and decision by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, five cases (Guiding Cases No. 97-101) including People v. Wang Lijun (case of substituting acquittal for conviction of illegal business upon retrial) are hereby issued as the nineteenth group of guiding cases for reference in trial of similar cases. 经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论决定,现将王力军非法经营再审改判无罪案等五个案例(指导案例97-101号),作为第19批指导性案例发布,供在审判类似案件时参照。
Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院
December 19, 2018 2018年12月19日
Guiding Case No. 97 指导案例97号
People v. Wang Lijun (case of substituting acquittal for conviction of illegal business upon retrial) 王力军非法经营再审改判无罪案
(Issued on December 19, 2018 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2018年12月19日发布)
Keywords: criminal; crime of illegal business; serious disruption of the market order; social harm; criminal wrong; necessity of criminal punishment 关键词 刑事/非法经营罪/严重扰乱市场秩序/社会危害性/刑事违法性/刑事处罚必要性
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
1. The application of Article 225(4) of the Criminal Law: "conduct other illegal business activities that seriously disrupt the market order" shall rely on whether the relevant activity is of social harm, criminal wrong and necessity of criminal punishment equivalent to the illegal business activities as mentioned in the first three subparagraphs of Article 225 of the Criminal Law. 1.对于刑法二百二十五条第四项规定的“其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为”的适用,应当根据相关行为是否具有与刑法二百二十五条前三项规定的非法经营行为相当的社会危害性、刑事违法性和刑事处罚必要性进行判断。
2. In judging whether a business activity in violation of the rules relating to government administration constitutes the crime of illegal business, whether the business activity gives rise to a serious disruption of the market order shall be taken into account. A business activity in violation the rules relating to government administration, resulting in no serious disruption of the market order, need not be determined as a crime of illegal business. 2.判断违反行政管理有关规定的经营行为是否构成非法经营罪,应当考虑该经营行为是否属于严重扰乱市场秩序。对于虽然违反行政管理有关规定,但尚未严重扰乱市场秩序的经营行为,不应当认定为非法经营罪。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Article 225 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国刑法》第225条
Basic Facts 基本案情
The Linhe District People's Procuratorate of Bayannaoer City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region accused defendant Wang Lijun of illegal business. The Linhe District People's Court of Bayannaoer City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region held upon trial that, from November 2014 to January 2015, defendant Wang Lijun illegally procured corn from villages and groups in the vicinity of Bainaobao Town, Linhe District, without a grain procurement permit or the confirmation, registration and issue of a business license by the administrative authority for industry and commerce, and sold the corn so procured to the Manhui Branch in Hangjinhou Banner of the Bayannaoer Grain and Oil Company, garnering illegally sales of 21,8288.6 yuan and an illegal profit of 6,000 yuan. After the case was identified, defendant Wang Lijun voluntarily handed over the illegal profit of 6,000 yuan. On March 27, 2015, defendant Wang Lijun surrendered to the Economic Investigation Brigade of the Linhe District Public Security Bureau of Bayannaoer City. The court of first instance was of the view that defendant Wang Lijun illegally procured corn in violation of the laws and administrative regulations of the state, without the permission of the grain authority or the confirmation, registration and issue of a business license by the administrative authority for industry and commerce, and garnered considerable illegal sales of 21,8288.6 yuan, and his conduct constituted the crime of illegal business. Given that defendant Wang Lijun surrendered to the public security authority after the case was identified, voluntarily handed over all the illegal income and showed signs of repentance for the crime and that the application of probation in favor of him gave rise to no further harm to society, the court of first instance decided to impose lighter punishment and apply probation in favor of defendant Wang Lijun. After the sentence was pronounced, neither Wang Lijun nor the procuratorate appealed, and the judgment became effective. 内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市临河区人民检察院指控被告人王力军犯非法经营罪一案,内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市临河区人民法院经审理认为,2014年11月至2015年1月期间,被告人王力军未办理粮食收购许可证,未经工商行政管理机关核准登记并颁发营业执照,擅自在临河区白脑包镇附近村组无证照违法收购玉米,将所收购的玉米卖给巴彦淖尔市粮油公司杭锦后旗蛮会分库,非法经营数额218288.6元,非法获利6000元。案发后,被告人王力军主动退缴非法获利6000元。2015年3月27日,被告人王力军主动到巴彦淖尔市临河区公安局经侦大队投案自首。原审法院认为,被告人王力军违反国家法律和行政法规规定,未经粮食主管部门许可及工商行政管理机关核准登记并颁发营业执照,非法收购玉米,非法经营数额218288.6元,数额较大,其行为构成非法经营罪。鉴于被告人王力军案发后主动到公安机关投案自首,主动退缴全部违法所得,有悔罪表现,对其适用缓刑确实不致再危害社会,决定对被告人王力军依法从轻处罚并适用缓刑。宣判后,王力军未上诉,检察机关未抗诉,判决发生法律效力。
On December 16, 2016, the Supreme People's Court made the Retrial Decision (No. 6 [2016], Supervision, Criminal Division, SPC), appointing the Intermediate People's Court of Bayannaoer City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region to re-try the case. 最高人民法院于2016年12月16日作出(2016)最高法刑监6号再审决定,指令内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市中级人民法院对本案进行再审。
During the retrial, defendant Wang Lijun, the defense, and the prosecution had no objection to the facts found in the original judgment, and the facts found in the retrial were consistent with those found in the original judgment. The Bayannaoer City People's Procuratorate of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region stated that since the conduct by defendant Wang Lijun was an administrative wrong but not of social harm nor necessity of criminal punishment equivalent to the illegal business activities as mentioned in Article 225 of the Criminal Law, the conduct did not constitute the crime of illegal business. The Bayannaoer City People's Procuratorate proposed that the retrial court modify the original judgment according to the law. Defendant Wang Lijun had no objection to the facts and evidence found in the original trial during the retrial, but in the belief that his conduct did not constitute a crime of illegal business. The defender stated that as defendant Wang Lijun's act of procuring corn without a permit was of no social harm, criminal wrong or punishment necessity and lacked the components of the crime of illegal business under the Criminal Law and the conformity with the modesty principle of the Criminal Law, defendant Wang Lijun should be acquitted. 再审中,原审被告人王力军及检辩双方对原审判决认定的事实无异议,再审查明的事实与原审判决认定的事实一致。内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市人民检察院提出了原审被告人王力军的行为虽具有行政违法性,但不具有与刑法二百二十五条规定的非法经营行为相当的社会危害性和刑事处罚必要性,不构成非法经营罪,建议再审依法改判。原审被告人王力军在庭审中对原审认定的事实及证据无异议,但认为其行为不构成非法经营罪。辩护人提出了原审被告人王力军无证收购玉米的行为,不具有社会危害性、刑事违法性和应受惩罚性,不符合刑法规定的非法经营罪的构成要件,也不符合刑法谦抑性原则,应宣告原审被告人王力军无罪。
Judgment 裁判结果
On April 15, 2016, the Linhe District People's Court of Bayannaoer City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region entered the Criminal Judgment (No. 54 [2016], First, Criminal Division, 0802 Inner Mongolia), finding defendant Wang Lijun guilty of illegal business, sentencing him to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year with a two-year suspension of execution and a fine of 20,000 yuan, and ordering the illegal profit of 6,000 yuan handed over by defendant Wang Lijun to be turned over to the state treasury by the criminal investigation authority. On December 16, 2016, the Supreme People's Court made the Retrial Decision (No. 6 [2016], Supervision, Criminal Division, SPC), appointing the Intermediate People's Court of Bayannaoer City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region to re-try the case. On February 14, 2017, the Intermediate People's Court of Bayannaoer City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region entered the Criminal Judgment (No. 1 [2017], Retrial, Criminal Division, 08, Inner Mongolia), (1) vacating the Criminal Judgment (No. 54 [2016], First, Criminal Division, 0802 Inner Mongolia) entered by the Linhe District People's Court of Bayannaoer City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, (2) acquitting defendant Wang Lijun. 内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市临河区人民法院于2016年4月15日作出(2016)内0802刑初54号刑事判决,认定被告人王力军犯非法经营罪,判处有期徒刑一年,缓刑二年,并处罚金人民币二万元;被告人王力军退缴的非法获利款人民币六千元,由侦查机关上缴国库。最高人民法院于2016年12月16日作出(2016)最高法刑监6号再审决定,指令内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市中级人民法院对本案进行再审。内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市中级人民法院于2017年2月14日作出(2017)内08刑再1号刑事判决:一、撤销内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市临河区人民法院(2016)内0802刑初54号刑事判决;二、原审被告人王力军无罪。
...... 裁判理由
 内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市中级人民法院再审认为,原判决认定的原审被告人王力军于2014年11月至2015年1月期间,没有办理粮食收购许可证及工商营业执照买卖玉米的事实清楚,其行为违反了当时的国家粮食流通管理有关规定,但尚未达到严重扰乱市场秩序的危害程度,不具备与刑法二百二十五条规定的非法经营罪相当的社会危害性、刑事违法性和刑事处罚必要性,不构成非法经营罪。原审判决认定王力军构成非法经营罪适用法律错误,检察机关提出的王力军无证照买卖玉米的行为不构成非法经营罪的意见成立,原审被告人王力军及其辩护人提出的王力军的行为不构成犯罪的意见成立。
 (生效裁判审判人员:辛永清、百灵、何莉)
 指导案例98号
 张庆福、张殿凯诉朱振彪生命权纠纷案
 (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2018年12月19日发布)
 关键词 民事/生命权/见义勇为
 裁判要点
 行为人非因法定职责、法定义务或约定义务,为保护国家、社会公共利益或者他人的人身、财产安全,实施阻止不法侵害者逃逸的行为,人民法院可以认定为见义勇为。
 相关法条
 中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第6条
 中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第70条
 基本案情
 原告张庆福、张殿凯诉称: 2017年1月9日,被告朱振彪驾驶奥迪小轿车追赶骑摩托车的张永焕。后张永焕弃车在前面跑,被告朱振彪也下车在后面继续追赶,最终导致张永焕在迁曹线90公里495米处(滦南路段)撞上火车身亡。朱振彪在追赶过程中散布和传递了张永焕撞死人的失实信息;在张永焕用语言表示自杀并撞车实施自杀行为后,朱振彪仍然追赶,超过了必要限度;追赶过程中,朱振彪手持木凳、木棍,对张永焕的生命造成了威胁,并数次漫骂张永焕,对张永焕的死亡存在主观故意和明显过错,对张永焕死亡应承担赔偿责任。
 被告朱振彪辩称:被告追赶交通肇事逃逸者张永焕的行为属于见义勇为行为,主观上无过错,客观上不具有违法性,该行为与张永焕死亡结果之间不存在因果关系,对张永焕的意外死亡不承担侵权责任。
 法院经审理查明:2017年1月9日上午11时许,张永焕由南向北驾驶两轮摩托车行驶至古柳线青坨鹏盛水产门口,与张雨来无证驾驶同方向行驶的无牌照两轮摩托车追尾相撞,张永焕跌倒、张雨来倒地受伤、摩托车受损,后张永焕起身驾驶摩托车驶离现场。此事故经曹妃甸交警部门认定:张永焕负主要责任,张雨来负次要责任。
 事发当时,被告朱振彪驾车经过肇事现场,发现肇事逃逸行为即驾车追赶。追赶过程中,朱振彪多次向柳赞边防派出所、曹妃甸公安局110指挥中心等公安部门电话报警。报警内容主要是:柳赞镇一道档北两辆摩托车相撞,有人受伤,另一方骑摩托车逃逸,报警人正在跟随逃逸人,请出警。朱振彪驾车追赶张永焕过程中不时喊“这个人把人怼了逃跑呢”等内容。张永焕驾驶摩托车行至滦南县胡各庄镇西梁各庄村内时,弃车从南门进入该村村民郑如深家,并从郑如深家过道屋拿走菜刀一把,从北门走出。朱振彪见张永焕拿刀,即从郑如深家中拿起一个木凳,继续追赶。后郑如深赶上朱振彪,将木凳讨回,朱振彪则拿一木棍继续追赶。追赶过程中,有朱振彪喊“你怼死人了往哪跑!警察马上就来了”,张永焕称“一会儿我就把自己砍了”,朱振彪说“你把刀扔了我就不追你了”之类的对话。
 走出西梁各庄村后,张永焕跑上滦海公路,有向过往车辆冲撞的行为。在被李江波驾驶的面包车撞倒后,张永焕随即又站起来,在路上行走一段后,转向铁路方向的开阔地跑去。在此过程中,曹妃甸区交通局路政执法大队副大队长郑作亮等人加入,与朱振彪一起继续追赶,并警告路上车辆,小心慢行,这个人想往车上撞。
 张永焕走到迁曹铁路时,翻过护栏,沿路堑而行,朱振彪亦翻过护栏继续跟随。朱振彪边追赶边劝阻张永焕说:被撞到的那个人没事儿,你也有家人,知道了会惦记你的,你自首就中了。2017年1月9日11时56分,张永焕自行走向两铁轨中间,51618次火车机车上的视频显示,朱振彪挥动上衣,向驶来的列车示警。2017年1月9日12时02分,张永焕被由北向南行驶的51618次火车撞倒,后经检查被确认死亡。
 在朱振彪跟随张永焕的整个过程中,两人始终保持一定的距离,未曾有过身体接触。朱振彪有劝张永焕投案的语言,也有责骂张永焕的言辞。
 另查明,张雨来在与张永焕发生交通事故受伤后,当日先后被送到曹妃甸区医院、唐山市工人医院救治,于当日回家休养,至今未进行伤情鉴定。张永焕死亡后其第一顺序法定继承人有二人,即其父张庆福、其子张殿凯。
 2017年10月11日,大秦铁路股份有限公司大秦车务段滦南站作为甲方,与原告张殿凯作为乙方,双方签订《铁路交通事故处理协议》,协议内容“2017年1月9日12时02分,51618次列车运行在曹北站至滦南站之间90公里495处,将擅自进入铁路线路的张永焕撞死,构成一般B类事故;死者张永焕负事故全部责任;铁路方在无过错情况下,赔偿原告张殿凯4万元。”
 裁判结果
 河北省滦南县人民法院于2018年2月12日作出(2017)冀0224民初3480号民事判决:驳回原告张庆福、张殿凯的诉讼请求。一审宣判后,原告张庆福、张殿凯不服,提出上诉。审理过程中,上诉人张庆福、张殿凯撤回上诉。河北省唐山市中级人民法院于2018年2月28日作出(2018)冀02民终2730号民事裁定:准许上诉人张庆福、张殿凯撤回上诉。一审判决已发生法律效力。
 裁判理由
 法院生效裁判认为:张庆福、张殿凯在本案二审审理期间提出撤回上诉的请求,不违反法律规定,准许撤回上诉。
 本案焦点问题是被告朱振彪行为是否具有违法性;被告朱振彪对张永焕的死亡是否具有过错;被告朱振彪的行为与张永焕的死亡结果之间是否具备法律上的因果关系。
 首先,案涉道路交通事故发生后张雨来受伤倒地昏迷,张永焕驾驶摩托车逃离。被告朱振彪作为现场目击人,及时向公安机关电话报警,并驱车、徒步追赶张永焕,敦促其投案,其行为本身不具有违法性。同时,根据《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第七十条规定,交通肇事发生后,车辆驾驶人应当立即停车、保护现场、抢救伤者,张永焕肇事逃逸的行为违法。被告朱振彪作为普通公民,挺身而出,制止正在发生的违法犯罪行为,属于见义勇为,应予以支持和鼓励。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【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