The Paper reporter Xie Yinzong

　　In June 2019, Liu Hu, a former media person, was prosecuted privately by He Changqiu in June 2019 for writing an article revealing the scandal of Chongqing billionaire He Changqiu.

He Changqiu asked the court to investigate Liu Hu's criminal responsibility for defamation and to compensate him for various losses of 1 million yuan.

　　The Fuling District Court of Chongqing City made a first-instance ruling on December 9, 2021, holding that He Changqiu sued Liu Hu for defamation, and the evidence submitted could not determine that the facts involved in Liu Hu’s writing of the relevant articles were fabricated, and the court did not add sufficient evidence after the notification.

The court ruled to dismiss He Changqiu's lawsuit.

After the first trial, He Changqiu appealed to the Chongqing Third Intermediate People's Court.

　　The Paper learned from Liu Hu on April 8, 2022 that he received a ruling from the Third Intermediate Court of Chongqing that morning. The court of second instance believed that the evidence submitted by He Changqiu was insufficient to prove that Liu Hu deliberately fabricated facts and slandered others. The original trial ruled that it was correct to dismiss He Changqiu's prosecution.

The appeal was dismissed and the original ruling was upheld.

The original media person wrote an article revealing that the billionaire prostitution scandal was sued

　　He Changqiu was born in September 1962 in Dadukou District, Chongqing.

Liu Hu, who is 13 years younger than He Changqiu, is from Yubei District, Chongqing, and has worked as an investigative reporter for many domestic media.

　　He Changqiu's private criminal complaint states that his grievance with Liu Hu originated on August 5, 2018, when Liu Hu published on the WeChat public account (Prairie Falcon) entitled "Chongqing Promiscuous Billionaire Sued for a Divorce Case for Five Years" If not sentenced, his wife will file a criminal charge again” (hereinafter referred to as “The Charge”).

　　In the "Accusation" article, He Changqiu was revealed to be suspected of raping 7 women, 12 women having extramarital affairs, and 10 women sexually harassing them; he called his son a "defective, waste product" and wanted to take it out and throw it away, and committed violence when his wife filed for divorce ; In order to achieve the purpose of transferring and concealing the joint property of the husband and wife, malicious collusion, fabrication of facts, and filing false civil lawsuits, etc.

　　He Changqiu believes that the above facts are fabricated. After the article was published, a large number of netizens clicked, browsed, commented and reprinted by other websites, and attracted the attention of a large number of netizens.

His personal dignity was severely insulted and his social evaluation was significantly lowered due to being slandered, which caused insomnia and mental pain, resulting in severe depression.

　　On July 22, 2019, He Changqiu filed a private criminal prosecution with the People's Court of Dadukou District, Chongqing, requesting the court to investigate Liu Hu's criminal responsibility for defamation according to law, and asking Liu Hu to compensate 1 million yuan for various losses.

　　On August 4, 2020, as designated by the Chongqing Higher People's Court, the case was under the jurisdiction of the Fuling District People's Court.

On August 18, 2020, the Dadukou Court transferred the case to the Fuling District Court.

　　At the first trial of the Fuling District Court, Liu Hu and his defenders believed that the matters mentioned in the article "The Complaint" written by him were all sourced and supported by relevant evidence, and were not fabricated, and some of the evidence sources submitted by He Changqiu were illegal. cannot be used as evidence.

He Changqiu sued Liu Hu for defamation, but there was no evidence to prove that the content of the article written by Liu Hu was fabricated, and Liu Hu's behavior did not constitute defamation.

　　Liu Hu's defender, Zhang Tingyuan, a lawyer from Chongqing Junrong Law Firm, wrote in his defense lawyer's opinion to the court of first instance that Liu Hu wrote the article to speak out for justice and did not have the subjective intention of defaming.

Dare to publicly expose ugliness and injustice is a manifestation of a citizen's conscience. It is the duty of every judicial officer to protect citizens with a conscience. The law should protect those who speak for justice.

The court of first and second instance ruled to dismiss the lawsuit

　　In response to He Changqiu's private prosecution case, the Fuling District Court made a first-instance ruling on December 9, 2021 after trial.

　　The court held that the crime of defamation is a case of private prosecution, and the burden of proving the defendant's guilt in a case of private prosecution should be borne by the private prosecutor.

The private prosecutor He Changqiu now accuses Liu Hu of the crime of defamation. The evidence submitted by him cannot confirm that the facts involved in the relevant articles written by Liu Hu are fabricated, and after the court's notification, sufficient evidence has not yet been added.

Accordingly, the court ruled to dismiss He Changqiu's lawsuit against Liu Hu in accordance with the law.

　　He Changqiu, who was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, submitted an appeal to the Chongqing Third Intermediate Court on December 13, 2021.

　　He Changqiu argued in the appeal that the court of first instance was wrong in its determination of the facts, that Liu Hu's crime facts were clear, the evidence was reliable and sufficient, and the crime was convicted.

The court of first instance violated the procedure and should revoke the original judgment.

At the same time, the court of first instance accepted that the judge deliberately violated the facts and made a judgment of bending the law, and was suspected of bending the law for personal gain, and requested the court of second instance to revise the sentence according to law.

　　The ruling of the Chongqing Third Intermediate People's Court shows that during the second instance, He Changqiu supplemented the court with the civil judgment documents of Liu Hu and others' Internet infringement and reputation infringement cases, but the court believed that the evidence was irrelevant to the case, and the court did not To accept.

　　Regarding the opinion put forward by He Changqiu that "the procedure of this case is illegal and the original judgment should be revoked", the Chongqing Third Intermediate People's Court held that the court of first instance had a problem of exceeding the statutory trial period in hearing this case, but this problem did not affect the fair trial of this case and was not a The law stipulates the circumstances in which the original judgment should be revoked and remanded for retrial.

Therefore, the court of second instance did not accept the opinion of setting aside the original judgment.

　　Regarding the opinions of He Changqiu and his attorney ad litem that the facts of the crime in this case are clear and the evidence is indeed sufficient.

After investigation, the Chongqing No. 3 Intermediate Court found that the evidence submitted by He Changqiu was insufficient to prove that Liu Hu had deliberately fabricated and defamed others. Therefore, the original decision to reject He Changqiu's lawsuit was correct.

The opinion of the appellant and his agent ad litem was untenable, and the court did not accept it.

Liu Hu and his defender's opinion that "the first-instance court's ruling is correct, request the second-instance court to reject He Changqiu's appeal in accordance with the law and uphold the original ruling" was established, and the court accepted it.

　　In the end, the Chongqing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court held that the court of first instance ruled that the application of law to reject He Changqiu's lawsuit was correct and should be upheld.

The appeal was dismissed and the original ruling was upheld.

This ruling is also final.