Lawyer

Seeing this, Yun Qiao hurriedly took a few bottles of Arctic Ocean from the refrigerator in the corner and handed them to Du Yong and the others: "There are still some in the refrigerator, everyone go get them. Lawyer Du, moisten your throat before we talk."

"Let's see if it's Lawyer Yun, Lawyer Yun, is there any stock left? I'm hungry." Zhou Ying laughed.

"There are all kinds of newly bought snacks in the cabinet over there." Yunqiao saw Zhou Ying rushing towards the cabinet next to the refrigerator like a hungry wolf, and immediately stretched her neck to remind: "Leave some for me, don't eat all of them." .”

Seeing the two of them like this, everyone suffocated their laughter. After Zhou Ying distributed snacks to everyone, there was a sound of tearing plastic bags.

Du Yong drank Arctic Ocean, ate small snacks, and cleared his throat: "Let me continue. In this case, the victim Hu Haidan strongly requested that Ge Xinggen be held criminally responsible for the crime of robbery. If the facts stated by Hu Haidan fit the characteristics of the crime of robbery, and naturally , complete, and can be corroborated by other evidence in the case, even if Ge Xinggen denies it, the judge will definitely confirm the criminal facts of robbery.

However, there are some doubts in Hu Haidan's statement, which cannot be confirmed by other evidence, while Ge Xinggen's statement is relatively stable.In this case, the victim's statement is not convincing.

Let's first look at the victim Hu Haidan's statement:
The victim Hu Haidan's statement about his being robbed was inconsistent and obviously contradictory.Hu Haidan made six statements before and after, three in the investigation stage and three in the trial stage.

At the stage of investigation, the contradictions in the victim's statement are reflected in:
1. The locations of the incidents are inconsistent. In her first statement, the incident started at the avenue next to the shopping mall, while in her second statement it was at the entrance of a kindergarten.

In order to verify the facts of the case, Cheng and I went to the scene to check. The distance between the two places is more than one kilometer. Obviously, there are contradictions in the victim's statement.

2. The victim's initial statement stated that Ge Xinggen left after "checking" her belongings, while the third statement stated that Ge Xinggen was watching Lanshan rob her of her belongings.

3. The victim's first statement did not mention that she was beaten by Lan Shantai with her knee on her abdomen, but she mentioned it in the second statement.

4. In the first statement, the victim said that her bag was taken away, but in the second statement, the perpetrator dragged her to a place where no one was there, and then took her bag away.

5. In the second statement, the victim said that a man said that there were words in her ring, which was not mentioned in the previous statement.

Later, the victim's representative successively submitted three transcripts of the defendant's statement, making additions and changes to his statement during the investigation stage:
The first transcript recorded: two men took out the passbook from her satchel and asked for the password. After she refused, the two men put the passbook back into her bag.

The second record records: two men dragged her to a place where there was no one because they could not take off the ring. give him.

The third record records: two men pressed his abdomen hard and hit his forehead with a brick, causing a black patch on his forehead, and injuries to his head, waist, and pelvis.

We reviewed the evidence in the case and found that the victim Hu Haidan's statement was not corroborated by other evidence, and there were many contradictions with the evidence he submitted.Specifically reflected in:

[-]. Hu Haidan claimed that his waist was injured at the time of the crime, but according to the medical records he submitted, he went to the hospital on the same day and complained of waist pain for more than one month and worsened for two days. Therefore, the medical record cannot prove that his waist was injured in this case.

[-]. Witness Nong Yinhua said that she and Hu Haidan reported the case to the public security organ. She saw that Hu Haidan's forehead was injured, and Hu Haidan herself also said that there were bruises on her forehead.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the two reported forehead injuries to the public security organs.The medical records that Hu Haidan went to see a doctor in the afternoon of the day of the incident did not record this situation, and there is no other evidence to prove that Hu Haidan suffered a forehead injury.

[-]. Although the witness Nong Yinhua claimed that Hu Haidan was robbed and suffered injuries to his forehead and waist, the witness was not at the scene of the crime at the time, nor did he witness the crime. All of his testimony came from Hu Haidan, and all of them were issued by Hu Haidan during the review and prosecution stage. The transcript of the testimony made by Hu Haidan's legal representative. "Du Yong explained.

"Oh! It seems that there are indeed problems with the victim's statement, and there are many contradictions." Zhou Ying nodded.

"In addition, part of the statement made by the victim Hu Haidan does not conform to the common sense of life. It is specifically reflected in:

1. The time of the incident was around 11:30 in the morning, and the location of the incident was not a remote place where no one passed by. Hu Haidan claimed that he was dragged by two men on the road, but no one found him.

Moreover, Hu Haidan said during the investigation stage that his bag was thrown by the wall and was not taken away together with other property, which does not conform to the characteristics of general robbery crimes.

2. If Hu Haidan suffered a crime of robbery, generally the perpetrator would not claim that there were words in the victim's ring, and the perpetrator would indiscriminately rob all valuables that could be seen.

And this plot just shows that the perpetrator's purpose of saying this is to trick the victim to take off the ring from his hand, which is exactly the usual trick in the case of "parabolic deception".

3. Among Ge Xinggen's three, Lan Shantai and Wu Wanzhong were sentenced for the crime of "parabolic deception". It is more likely that the three will commit the crime again by using the same method.

4. The confession of the defendant Ge Xinggen is relatively stable.According to his confession, he and two other perpetrators first obtained Hu Haidan's bank card password by fraudulent means, and then secretly stole Hu Haidan's bank card, cash, mobile phone, ring and other property while Hu Haidan was not paying attention, and then held Hu Haidan's bank card. Go to the ATM machine to withdraw money.

Ge Xinggen made a total of four confessions during the stages of investigation and examination and prosecution. The main contents of the confessions, including the method of crime, the number of people involved in the crime, the means of committing the crime, the object of the crime, the property involved in the case and the amount of money, etc., are basically the same.

And when we went to the detention center to meet him, Ge Xinggen explained why he put Hu Haidan’s bag on the ground by the wall, mainly because he pretended to verify who the ring belonged to, so he temporarily put the bag in a place where Hu Haidan could not easily take it away. , but Bao was watched by Hu Haidan at the time and did not escape her control.

Based on the above evidence, the credibility of the victim Hu Haidan's statement is lower than that of the defendant Ge Xinggen.In this case, Ge Xinggen's statement should be accepted according to the principle of reliability of evidence.

Because the crime of robbery is a felony compared with the crimes of theft and fraud, when there is doubt, it is more in line with the principle of "suspect favors the defendant" to accept Ge Xinggen's confession.

Therefore, we believe that the defendant Ge Xinggen in this case should constitute the crime of theft, not robbery. "Du Yong continued to explain.