Lawyer

Chapter 466 Reasonable Doubt

"Second, there was confusion of property between the two during the cohabitation process. According to the evidence provided by the public prosecution agency, during the cohabitation period, Zhao Xiaojie transferred a total of 140 yuan in wage income to Zhou Yingqi, and the public prosecution agency did not calculate this part of the amount. The amount of money involved in the crime also shows that the public prosecution agency recognizes the fact that the property of the two is mixed.

Third, the defendant Zhou Yingqi seeks benefits for Zhao Xiaojie and Zhao Xiaojie sends money to Zhou Yingqi, which cannot be ruled out as a voluntary contribution driven by emotional factors.

According to Article [-] of the "Criminal Procedure Law", "evidence is reliable and sufficient" requires that "the evidence of the whole case be comprehensive, and reasonable doubts have been ruled out for the facts identified".

The so-called "reasonable doubt" must not be generalized or vague, but should be specific, based on ordinary people's judgment standards and empirical rules, and judging legal facts based on existing evidence. , and it is enough to shake the basis of fact determination, which constitutes reasonable doubt.

In this case, Zhou and Zhao have the willingness and emotional basis to reorganize their families. Human nature.

According to the confessions of Zhao Xiaojie and Zhou Yingqi and the testimonies of witnesses, it can be seen that the financial exchanges between Zhou and Zhao are based on the idea of ​​living together in the future, and also to please and win the trust of the other party or to give spiritual compensation to the other party for not being able to get married.

Assuming that Zhou Yingqi and Zhao Xiaojie finally become husband and wife, the property exchanges between the two parties will become their common property, and the two will become a real community of interests, and there will be no room for power and money transactions.

The evidence in the case can reflect that the two never regarded it as a transaction subjectively, but a voluntary contribution driven by emotional factors.

Therefore, there is no correspondence between Zhou Yingqi's behavior of accepting money from her lover (Zhao Xiaojie) and her lover's (Zhao Xiaojie) entrustment behavior, and the existing evidence cannot prove that Zhou Yingqi has solicited bribes.The existing evidence chain cannot draw a unique conclusion.The money collected by Zhou Yingqi should not be characterized as bribery money.

30. The defendant Zhou Yingqi's acceptance of [-] yuan from Jiayue Company should not be deemed as bribery.

According to Article 380 of the "Criminal Law", a state functionary who takes advantage of the convenience formed by his own power or status, seeks illegitimate benefits for the client, asks for the client's property or accepts the client's property through the behavior of other state functionaries in his position , to accept bribes.

In this case, Zhou Yingqi only recommended Jiayue Company to a third-party private technology company, and this recommendation was also based on Zhao Xiaojie's plea and the special relationship between the two parties.

Moreover, the third-party technology company also cooperates with Jiayue Company to carry out business after comprehensive consideration of its strength, and is not affected by Zhou Yingqi's authority, and there is no improper interest relationship between the two parties.

To sum up, although the defendant Zhou Yingqi had violated the regulations, her behavior of accepting money from Zhao Xiaojie and Jiayue Company was not regarded as bribery.complete. "Fang Yi said.

Regarding the characterization of the 30 yuan paid by Jiayue Company, Fang Yi deliberately shifted the judge's attention to the relationship between Zhou Yingqi and the technology company, which was actually a smoke bomb deliberately set by him.He wanted to lead the judge by the nose.As for whether the judge was fooled, that is beyond his control.

"The public prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinion." The presiding judge said.

"Presiding judge, judge: Regarding the defender's defense opinion, we mainly express the following two points of view:

[-]. The special relationship between Zhou Yingqi and Zhao Xiaojie should not be an obstacle to finding that Zhou Yingqi accepted bribes.

Looking at the whole case, the two are suspected of using their special relationship to cover up bribery and bribery. It is not ruled out that the two may have formed an offensive and defensive alliance before the incident because of their special relationship.Therefore, all the money Zhou Yingqi received should be regarded as bribery.

30. The [-] yuan from Jiayue Company accepted by Zhou Yingqi should be classified as bribery

According to the "Minutes of the Symposium on the Trial of Economic Crime Cases by the National Courts" ([2003] No. 167), the "convenience conditions formed by using one's own power or status" stipulated in Article 380 of the "Criminal Law" refers to the actor and the victim. Although there is no relationship of affiliation or restriction among the employed GJ staff in their positions, the perpetrator has used the influence of his own power or status and certain work contacts, such as between GJ staff in different departments within the company, or between superior and subordinate units Between GJ staff who have no job affiliation or restriction relationship, between GJ staff of different units who have work ties, etc.

Specifically in this case, the third-party technology company is the supplier of the appellant Zhou Yingqi's company. Zhou Yingqi, as the company's deputy general manager, has a certain influence on the selection and employment of suppliers, so there is a restrictive relationship between the two parties.

Under such circumstances, it cannot be determined simply based on formal requirements that the relationship between Zhou Yingqi’s company and the technology company is an equal civil subject relationship. In essence, Zhou Yingqi’s company and herself have constraints and influences on third-party technology companies.In addition, after Zhou Yingqi recommended Jiayue Company to the general assistant of the technology company, the two parties quickly reached a business cooperation, which also confirmed Zhou Yingqi's influence.

It can be seen that the cooperation between Jiayue Company and the technology company took advantage of Zhou Yingqi's position, and Zhou Yingqi's behavior of accepting money from the two should be regarded as bribery.complete! " said the inspector.

……

After the trial, the presiding judge announced a 10-minute adjournment, and the judge will be in court later.Zhou Yingqi felt that Fang Yi's defense was very good, and as for the verdict in the second trial, she could only do her best and obey the destiny.

Zhou Yingqi waited anxiously, just like waiting for a loved one to come to her door, afraid that he would come, afraid that he would not come, and even more afraid that he would mess around.

Ten minutes passed quickly, and the three judges of the collegial panel entered the courtroom.

"... Now the trial is continuing. The collegial panel has deliberated on this case and has formed a judgment. In view of the opinions of both the prosecution and the defense, combined with the focus of the dispute in this case, and based on the facts and evidence of this case, this court makes the following analysis:

Based on the facts, nature, circumstances, and degree of harm to society of Zhou Yingqi's crime, the court of first instance made a judgment according to law with clear facts, reliable and sufficient evidence, appropriate sentencing, and legal trial procedures. Change the sentence.

This court holds that Zhou Yingqi's acceptance of 30 yuan from Jiayue Company constituted the crime of accepting bribes.Therefore, the protest opinion of the procuratorate is accepted.Other protest opinions of the procuratorate shall not be adopted.The verdict is as follows:
[-]. Uphold the first and third items of the first-instance criminal judgment of the intermediate people's court;

[-]. Revocation of item [-] of the first-instance criminal judgment of the Intermediate People's Court;
280. Of the 30 million yuan seized in the case, 30 yuan was confiscated as illegal income, [-] yuan was incorporated into Zhou Yingqi's fine and executed, and the remaining money was returned to Zhou Yingqi. " said the presiding judge.

(End of this chapter)