Lawyer's character

“The facts of this case have been clearly investigated, the court investigation has ended, and now the court debate has begun. The court debate mainly revolves around the disputed facts that have not been certified by the court and the issue of how the law should be applied based on the facts.

The prosecutor will speak first. "The chief judge said.

"Presiding Judge, Judge: The prosecutor believes that in order to obtain illegal profits, the defendant Sun Shengli illegally printed a large number of bathing tickets and sold them in the society. His behavior seriously disrupted the local market economic order and caused certain losses to the operation of the county hotel. .

In addition, the defendant's forged bathing ticket has a certain value and is a valuable ticket. The defendant's behavior violated two crimes at the same time and was an imaginary crime. He should choose one of the felonies and be convicted and punished according to the crime of illegal business operations.

The defendant Sun Shengli illegally printed a large number of bathing tickets, which met the "serious circumstances" of the crime of illegal business operations. In view of the fact that Sun Shengli had a good attitude of pleading guilty after being brought to justice and showed a certain degree of repentance, it is recommended that he be sentenced to one year and six months in prison and a fine of 20,000 yuan. complete. "The prosecutor said.

"The defendant Sun Shengli defended himself," the presiding judge said.

"I plead guilty and accept the punishment, and asked the judge to give him a lighter punishment. I really didn't sell many bathing tickets..." Sun Shengli felt that the sentence recommended by the prosecutor was a bit long, and hoped that the court would be more liberal and give him a shorter sentence and fine him less money. .

"The defender of the defendant Sun Shengli expressed his defense opinions." The presiding judge looked at Fang Yi.

"Presiding Judge, Judge: The defender believes that the evidence in the case cannot prove that defendant Sun Shengli's behavior seriously disrupted the local market economic order. His behavior does not constitute the crime of illegal business operations, but should be punished as the crime of forging valuable instruments. The reasons are as follows :

1. Bathing tickets belong to ‘other valuable tickets’

Article 227 of the Criminal Law stipulates that whoever forges or resells counterfeit train tickets, boat tickets, stamps or other valuable instruments, if the amount is relatively large, shall constitute the crime of forging valuable instruments.

The "other valuable tickets" referred to in the above regulations should be valuable tickets with the same attributes as train tickets, ship tickets, stamps, etc., and should be uniformly issued and managed by relevant departments. The ticket holders have the right to request the corresponding departments to provide certain Tickets for services, such as bus tickets, subway tickets, etc.

These tickets all have common characteristics: first, they have a certain face value; second, they have certain economic benefits for the holder; third, they are public, that is, they are open to unspecified people in a certain space. efficient. Fourth, it is reflected in the provision or acceptance of certain services, and there is a clear legal relationship between the two parties.

In this case, the victim's county hotel is a business unit established in accordance with the law. Its business scope includes bathing services, and it has the right to print bathing tickets and sell them within a certain range. The bathing ticket printed by the hotel is a written voucher with a certain denomination that is approved by the local price department and is used in normal circulation in the local society.

Therefore, bathing tickets, like train tickets, boat stamps and stamps, have the characteristics of 'other valuable instruments' stipulated in Article 227 of the Criminal Law. Defendant Sun Shengli forged the bathing ticket, which constituted forgery of valuable instruments. crime.

2. The defendant forged bathing tickets for a relatively large amount

At present, the "Criminal Law" and judicial interpretations do not clearly stipulate the "relatively large amount" specified in Article 227, paragraph 1.

Paragraph 1 of Article 227 of the Criminal Law juxtaposes the act of 'forging other valuable tickets' with the act of reselling tickets. Therefore, the defender believes that the act of forging other valuable tickets and the act of reselling tickets are harmful to society. , should be equivalent to some extent. Therefore, you can refer to the relevant judicial interpretations on reselling tickets and the filing standards for forging other valuable tickets. details as follows:

Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Relevant Issues Concerning the Trial of Criminal Cases of Ticket Reselling (Fashi [1999] No. 17) stipulates that reselling tickets at high prices, changing prices, or increasing prices in a disguised manner, or reselling seats and sleeper signature numbers and ticket ordering vouchers, ticket face The amount is more than 5,000 yuan... which constitutes "serious ticket reselling" as stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 227 of the Criminal Law.

Article 29 of the "Regulations on the Filing and Prosecution Standards for Criminal Cases Under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs (I)" issued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security (released in June 2008) stipulates that counterfeiting or reselling of forged other valuable instruments If the total value exceeds 5,000 yuan, a case shall be filed for prosecution.

The evidence in the case shows that the total face value of the bathing tickets forged by Sun Shengli, the defendant in this case, is 15,000 yuan, which should be considered as a "large amount". Therefore, defendant Sun Shengli’s behavior should constitute the crime of forging valuable instruments.

In view of the fact that the defendant Sun Shengli had a good attitude of pleading guilty after being brought to justice, showed a certain degree of remorse, and was a first offender, the defender recommended that the defendant Sun Shengli be sentenced to five months of detention. complete. "Fang Yi said.

When Fang Yi communicated with the prosecutor about the case, both parties agreed on the crime of forging valuable notes, but Fang Yi believed that Sun Shengli's behavior did not constitute imaginary competition. Therefore, Fang Yi believes that it is necessary to work hard on the crime of forging valuable instruments, analyze the problem thoroughly, and explain it clearly to the judges of the collegial panel.

Fang Yi believes that even if he does not mention the crime of counterfeiting valuable instruments, the judges will think about it, because the prosecutor has mentioned the concept of imaginary competing crimes in the relevant prosecution documents.

In addition, Sun Shengli has been detained for more than three months so far. Fang Yi suggested that Sun Shengli be sentenced to five months of detention, which has given the court time to issue a verdict.

…

"... This case has been reviewed by the collegial panel and a judgment has been formed. Based on the opinions of the prosecution and defense, combined with the focus of the dispute in this case, and based on the facts and evidence of this case, this court made the following comments:

Defendant Sun Shengli used illegal means to forge valuable notes, with a large amount, and his behavior constituted the crime of forging valuable notes.

The criminal facts charged by the public prosecution against Sun Shengli were clear and the evidence was reliable and sufficient. However, the application of the law was wrong and Sun Shengli did not constitute the crime of illegal business operations.

In view of the fact that the defendant Sun Shengli had a good attitude of pleading guilty after returning to justice and showed a certain degree of repentance, he may be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. In accordance with the provisions of Article 227, paragraph 1, Article 72, and Article 73, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the verdict is as follows:

Defendant Sun Shengli was convicted of forging valuable instruments and was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for one year, and fined 15,000 yuan. "The presiding judge pronounced the verdict.

Although the collegial panel did not adopt Fang Yi's sentencing recommendation, it did adopt Fang Yi's defense opinion on conviction and sentenced Sun Shengli to one year's probation.

It is a great thing for Sun Shengli to no longer have to squat in the detention center. But he had no money in his pocket, and Sun Rongrong had to help resolve the fine. But Sun Rongrong felt that the money was worth it. Her brother's freedom was far more important than money, even though her brother was a loser.

After the court session, Sun Rongrong's family invited Fang Yi and Zhou Ying to have a meal in the county town to express their gratitude.