The most stringent rule of law to protect the ecological environment the
　　country's first case of deliberately destroying natural remains into the criminal case

　　□ Reporter Huang Hui

　　□ Ren Meng, correspondent of this newspaper

　　On May 18, after the judgment of the second trial of the Sanqingshan Giant Python Peak damage case was announced, Wang Huijun, a post judge of the Environmental Resources Trial Division of the Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court, answered questions from reporters from the Legal Daily.

　　Severely damaged natural remains

　　Infringement of public environmental rights

　　Question: In this case, whether the behavior of Zhang Mouming and other three persons constituted a serious damage to Python Peak, how can it be determined if there is no legal appraisal agency that can appraise it?

　　A: In this case, the fact that the three defendants broke into 26 rock nails has caused serious damage to Sanqing Mountain Giant Python Peak. At present, there is no statutory judicial appraisal agency in the country that can conduct appraisals, but whether it constitutes serious damage is also whether the defendant constitutes The key to crime.

　　According to Article 87 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the" Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China "": "Special issues in cases need to be identified, but there is no statutory judicial appraisal agency, or laws and judicial interpretations can be Those who conduct inspections may appoint and hire persons with specialized knowledge to carry out the inspections. The inspection report may serve as a reference for conviction and sentencing. If the examiner refuses to testify in court upon notice of the people ’s court, the inspection report shall not be used as a reference for conviction and sentencing. "

　　In this case, the four experts who issued expert opinions have long been engaged in research in the field of geosciences, have expertise in the field of geosciences, have published a large number of papers or monographs in the field of geosciences, have hosted major scientific research topics in the field of geology, and have suffered damage to the Python peak. The ability to evaluate specific problems in the field of geography belongs to "people with specialized knowledge". The four experts accepted the authority of the investigative agency, based on their professional knowledge and on-site field investigation and evidence inspection, after full discussion and analysis, the damage situation of the giant python peak caused by rock nailing was given from the perspective of geology. Clear professional opinions and co-signatures. After being informed by the court, two of the four experts, Zhang Baiping and Yin Guosheng, appeared as examiners, explained the formation process of the "expert opinion" in detail, and accepted inquiries from the prosecution, the defense and the trial personnel. .

　　Therefore, the "expert opinion" in this case fully complies with the inspection report issued by a person with specialized knowledge as stipulated in Article 87 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", which can be used as a reference for conviction and sentencing in this case. .

　　Question: Does this case belong to a civil public interest litigation that can be filed by the procuratorate?

　　Answer: In this case, Zhang Mingming and other three people used rock nailing to climb the damage to the Python Peak, infringing on the environmental rights and interests of the unspecified social public, and the benefits enjoyed by the unspecified majority are the public interests Connotation. Environmental rights include not only the basic elements of the environment that are essential for people ’s survival and development, such as fresh air and clean water, but also the ecological and environmental resources that are generated based on the environment and can meet people ’s higher levels of needs, such as beautiful scenery and important Endangered animals with scientific research value, scarce plants with ecological protection significance or scarce natural resources, etc. The damage to these resources directly damages the naturalness and diversity of the ecological environment that people can feel, and even creates ecological risks that people cannot feel in a short time.

　　Article 5 of the "Regulations on the Management of Geological Relics Protection" stipulates that "the protection of geological remains is part of environmental protection". Zhang Mingming and other three people used rock nails to climb and climb, which caused damage to the giant python peak and constituted damage to the environment.

　　The damage to the natural relics of Giant Python Peak by the actions of three people including Zhang Mouming and others belongs to the behavior that damages the public interest in the field of ecological environment resources protection. According to the second paragraph of Article 55 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China": "People's Procuratorate found that in the performance of its duties, it damaged the ecological environment and resource protection, infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of many consumers in the field of food and drug safety, and harmed the public interest. If there is no organ or organization specified in the preceding paragraph or the organ and organization specified in the preceding paragraph does not file a lawsuit, it may bring a lawsuit to the people ’s court. "This case belongs to the civil public interest that the procuratorate may bring to the destruction of the ecological environment and resource protection. litigation.

　　Question: In environmental civil public interest litigation, the court ruled that three people should bear 6 million yuan in environmental resource losses. How was this compensation determined?

　　A: One of the difficulties in the environmental resource trial is the identification problem. In this case, there is no legal appraisal agency in the country to quantify the losses caused by the three actors to the giant python peak. The Shangrao People ’s Procuratorate commissioned the expert group of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics to evaluate the value of the loss of the giant python peak involved in the case. The expert group made the "Sanqingshan Giant Python Peak Damaged Value Assessment Report" (hereinafter referred to as the "assessment report"). The "Assessment Report" believes that the "valuation value of the Python Python Case" should not be lower than the minimum threshold for the loss of the non-use value of the Python Python, that is, 11.9 million yuan. "

　　The panelists Huang Heping, Lin Wenkai and Hu Haisheng have expertise in environmental economics and tourism management. The value of the case was evaluated using the internationally accepted will value method. All three experts appeared in court to evaluate the Evaluation Report Explain and accept the cross-examination of the parties.

　　According to Article 15 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation Cases, the "Expert Opinion" can be used as the basis for determining the facts in this case.

　　According to Article 23 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People ’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation Cases, the court can combine the scope and degree of ecological damage, the scarcity of the ecological environment, and the ease of restoration of the ecological environment And the degree of fault of the defendant and other factors, and can be reasonably determined by referring to the opinions of relevant departments and expert opinions. Therefore, the court of first instance based on the above opinions, combined with the objective facts of the case and various factors, with reference to the minimum threshold of 11.9 million yuan in the conclusion of the "Assessment Report", and decided the amount of compensation to be 6 million yuan.

　　Draw a legal red line

　　Standardize civilized tourism

　　Question: In this case, Zhang Mingming and other three people deliberately damaged the places of interest and destroyed natural resources. So what is the destruction of natural resources? What is the difference between this and tourists' uncivilized behavior in scenic spots? Why do you have to bear such a large legal responsibility for destroying natural resources?

　　Answer: This case is the first case of punishment for damaging places of interest due to damage to natural monuments. The places of interest in the Criminal Law are clearly stipulated. The core scenic spots of the nationally protected scenic spots belong to the “Nationally Protected Places of Interest” as prescribed in the second paragraph of Article 324 of the Criminal Law.

　　Giant Python Peak is the core scenic spot of Sanqingshan Scenic Area. The reason why Sanqing Mountain can be included in the "World Geopark" and "World Natural Heritage" list is inseparable from the unique world-class geological heritage site of Giant Python Peak. As a non-renewable and rare natural resource asset, the giant python peak not only has the great scientific value, aesthetic value and economic value, it is not only the common wealth of contemporary people, but also the natural environmental resources that future generations should have the opportunity to enjoy.

　　Three people including Zhang Mouming violated the social management order and used destructive climbing methods to climb the giant python peak, and drilled 26 rock nails on the granite column of the giant python peak. The core scenic spot, the giant python peak in the Sanqingshan Scenic Area, which was under special protection, caused serious damage and the plot was serious. Its behavior has constituted the crime of deliberately destroying places of historical interest and should be punished according to law.

　　The uncivilized behavior of tourists in the scenic area, according to the severity of the consequences, distinguish the level of their violations of law, so as to bear the corresponding civil responsibility, administrative responsibility and criminal responsibility. Penalty is the most severe punishment, and there are strict regulations on whether criminal responsibility should be investigated. For the crime of deliberately destroying places of interest, the core scenic spots of the state-protected scenic spots are clearly defined as "state-protected places of interest" in the criminal law. Criminal damages shall only be imposed on the damage of the state-protected places of historical interest and historic sites. Therefore, not all uncivilized acts constitute a crime.

　　In environmental civil public interest litigation cases, Zhang Mingming and other three persons were sentenced to bear the cost of ecological and environmental losses of 6 million yuan, mainly considering two factors.

　　On the one hand, according to geoscience experts who participated in the court trial, the World Natural Heritage is the highest natural landscape in the world determined by UNESCO through the joint identification of grassroots scientists, national scientists, and world scientists. protection. Moreover, Sanqing Mountain is a very important and typical granite landform composed of rock pillars and various landforms, especially a 128-meter-high independent granite pillar such as Python Peak, which is also a very peculiar phenomenon in the global geological community, so it is particularly valuable , 26 nails on it is serious damage. Pulling out the nails above will cause a second damage. The losses caused by it cannot be measured by money. On the other hand, the actions of the three people caused damage to Jubang Peak and must bear civil tort liability. When there is no statutory appraisal agency to appraise the loss, an expert is hired to assess the loss. The court combined the assessment method adopted by the experts and the conclusion of the "assessment report" to determine the amount of compensation to be 6 million yuan, which was not inappropriate.

　　Question: What warning effect does this case have on ordinary citizens when traveling?

　　A: The verdict in this case draws a legal red line for ordinary people in the uncivilized behavior of tourism. The imprisonment of the 3 accused is not only a negative evaluation of the acts committed by them, but also a warning to the world not to destroy the national monuments and monuments. It should cherish and treat the natural resources and ecological environment on which humans depend for survival and development; Some uncivilized behaviors in tourism are illegal and criminal behaviors, which further regulates the civilized tourism behaviors of tourists in our country, raises people's awareness of civilized tourism, and promotes citizens to assume the obligation of civilized tourism while enjoying the rights of tourism.

　　Conviction and sentencing are justified

　　The rule of law escorts the ecological environment

　　Question: What kind of damage did the defendant's behavior cause to the giant python peak and how serious was it?

　　A: In this case, four experts believe that the defendant ’s rock climbing and crawling caused permanent damage to the giant python peak in the core landscape of the world ’s natural heritage and destroyed the basic property of the natural heritage, namely naturalness. , Primitiveness, integrity, especially when at least 4 expansion bolts (rock nails) are inserted into the fragile section of the python peak column, which increases the vulnerability of the python peak column structure, that is, the stability of the python peak Destruction has occurred, and 26 expansion bolts will directly induce and aggravate physical, chemical, and biological weathering, forming new cracks, accelerating the erosion process of granite columns, and even causing disintegration.

　　Question: What irreparable losses have this incident caused to the natural environment, and what is the significance of the case ’s judgment?

　　Answer: The act of Zhang Mingming and other three people breaking 26 rock nails at Jubangfeng not only violated the criminal law and constituted a crime, but also violated the rights and interests of the social and public environment, and should bear civil liability according to law. This reflects the judicial concept of the strictest system and the strictest rule of law to protect the ecological environment.

　　Among them, the typical nature of criminal cases is to use "expert opinions" as a reference basis for conviction and sentencing. In addition, the case in which the three defendants were sentenced and ordered to compensate for the loss of the ecological environment can also guide the public to establish a correct view of ecological civilization.