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 presiding judge raised his head and looked at the prosecutor.

"Presiding Judge, Judge: We believe that in this case, the defendant Sha Congcong's act of secretly stealing the victim's property exceeding a huge amount constitutes the crime of theft. The specific reasons are as follows:

1. The location of the theft in this case was in the hotel chain room rented by the victim. No matter where the victim placed his watch, it should be considered that the victim still actually possessed the watch.

2. The defendant admitted that she took the victim's watch because the victim behaved rudely during the X transaction. She took the watch to vent her anger. This shows that the defendant had the intention to illegally possess it.

3. The defendant took the watch away when the victim went to the bathroom, which constituted secret theft.

To sum up, the defendant Sha Congcong in this case subjectively had the purpose of illegally possessing other people's items of a huge amount or more, and carried out secret theft, which complied with the constituent elements of the crime of theft.

Because the watch brand stolen by the defendant was Blancpain, worth 124,000 yuan, and the amount stolen was huge, we recommend that the court sentence the defendant to eight years in prison, complete. "The prosecutor spoke.

Fang Yi glanced at the prosecutor opposite and thought to himself: This guy can do it. He must have done a lot of homework in court.

…

"The defendant's defender made a defense statement," the presiding judge said.

"Presiding judge, judge: The defender has no objection to the charges charged by the prosecutor, but the defender believes that the defendant Sha Congcong has a major misunderstanding of the value of the stolen watch, and the defendant should not be punished according to the actual value of the watch and should be exempted Penalty. The reasons are as follows:

1. The defendant had a major misunderstanding of the value of the watch.

First, the victim casually placed a watch of such huge value on the table, together with cigarettes and lighters, causing Sha Congcong to misunderstand that the watch was of average value.

Second, after the defendant Sha Congcong was brought to justice, he could not accurately tell the specific characteristics of the watch such as the brand and model during all the interrogations, and he always believed that the watch was only worth about a thousand yuan. This shows that he really knows nothing about famous watches and does not care about the actual value of the watch.

Third, after the defendant Sha Congcong took the watch home, he neither escaped immediately nor disposed of the watch. He just put it in an unlocked drawer, which shows that the defendant did not know the actual value of the watch. understanding. If the defendant knew the actual value of the watch, it would have been impossible for him to fail to store it properly.

Fourth, when the victim called the defendant to ask about the watch, he never said the actual value of the watch. He only said that the watch was of great significance to him, and said that the watch was not valuable and that he was willing to give out a thousand yuan as a reward. , get the watch back.

The above circumstances deepened the defendant's misunderstanding of the actual value of the stolen watch.

To sum up, we believe that although the defendant’s act of taking other people’s watches conveniently had the subjective purpose of illegally possessing other people’s property, the defendant did not realize the actual value of the watches at the time.

In other words, the defendant subjectively only had the intention to illegally possess a "large amount" of other people's property, but did not have the intention to illegally possess a "huge amount" of property.

In this case, the defendant Sha Congcong had a serious misunderstanding of the value of the watch. The amount he understood was far lower than the actual amount. He should not be held criminally responsible for the amount of property he could not recognize.

2. The defendant may be exempted from criminal punishment.

According to Article 37 of the Criminal Law, if the crime is minor and does not require a criminal penalty, it may be exempted from criminal punishment.

In view of the fact that the defendant Sha Congcong had a major misunderstanding of the value of the stolen watch, and the stolen watch had been recovered and returned to the victim, his behavior was a minor crime. The defender recommended that defendant Sha Congcong be exempted from criminal punishment. complete. "Fang Yi finished reading the newly revised defense opinion.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinions," the presiding judge said.

“In response to the defender’s defense, we express the following views:

Whether the defendant has a major misunderstanding of the value of the stolen watch cannot be determined solely based on the defendant's confession or excuse. Otherwise, in the case, the defendant can claim to have a major misunderstanding of the value of the stolen items to avoid or escape. their legal responsibilities.

Therefore, we believe that it cannot be concluded that the defendant had a misunderstanding of the value of the stolen watch solely based on the defendant's confession and the situation at the scene at the time of the crime. The conviction and sentencing should be based on the actual value of the watch. complete. ” the prosecutor responded.

"The defender can respond to the prosecutor's opinions." The presiding judge looked at Fang Yi.

“Based on the prosecutor’s defense opinions and response, the defender issued the following defense opinions:

The defender believes that to determine whether the defendant has made a major misunderstanding of the value of the stolen watch, a comprehensive analysis should be based on the perpetrator's personal situation and his performance before and after the behavior.

The defendant in this case, Sha Congcong, was born in a natural village below the local county. His family conditions are not good. He has never seen such an expensive watch, and neither knows nor heard of such expensive watches.

Sha Congcong was only in his twenties, and had only been in the city for more than three years from the countryside. He had never been in contact with anyone with such an expensive watch before. The place where the crime occurred was not a high-end hotel, but an ordinary chain hotel, and regardless of whether it was The place where the crime occurred was close to his residence, and the best watches sold in the best shopping malls only cost a few thousand yuan.

Therefore, based on Sha Congcong's background, age, occupation, knowledge, and experience at the time of the crime, it is impossible for him to have a clear or general understanding of the actual value of the stolen watch. complete. "Fang Yi responded.

…

In Sha Congcong's case, after deliberations by the collegial panel, the presiding judge pronounced the verdict in court.

The court held that the defendant Sha Congcong secretly stole other people's property of a larger amount, and his behavior constituted the crime of theft. The defendant was found guilty of the crime of theft by the public prosecution and should be supported.

The victim put a watch of great value together with a lighter and cigarettes. On the one hand, it is enough to make a defendant who lacks basic knowledge of famous watches have a misconception that the watch is of average value; on the other hand, it may also make a defendant who makes a living selling watches Generate greed for small profits.

After the defendant was detained and before he learned the actual value of the stolen watch, he mistakenly believed that what he had stolen was just an ordinary watch worth nearly a thousand yuan.

Taking into account the defendant's background, age, occupation, knowledge, experience, etc., the defendant's misunderstanding of the value of the stolen watch was true and credible, and it was not a deliberate evasion by the defendant.

Today’s fourth update, book friends please support me! Asking for monthly votes and recommendation votes!