The ruling disclosed: the decision threatened the interests of a company, and explosives appeared outside the window of the secretary of the municipal party committee
An explosive device made by a celebration salute (commonly known as marijuana leizi) was placed on the bracket of the air-conditioning outdoor unit of the then Secretary of the Heilongjiang Anda Municipal Party Committee. For objective reasons, the device failed to detonate... Recently, the Chinese referee document A criminal ruling published on the Internet disclosed the 2006 case in Heilongjiang.
According to the above criminal ruling, the People’s Court of Anda City, Heilongjiang Province tried the case of the explosion of the defendant Du Xin’an by the People’s Procuratorate of Anda City, Heilongjiang Province. On November 28, 2019, a criminal judgment (2019) Hei 1281 Penchu No. 265 was issued and the defendant was found. Du Xinan was convicted of an explosion and sentenced to two years and six months in prison. After the sentencing, the defendant Du Xinan refused to accept and appealed.
Du Xinan, male, born May 6, 1964, Han nationality, native of Xiangfang District, Harbin City, Heilongjiang Province, junior high school culture, is the head of Anda City Rima Liquefied Petroleum Co., Ltd., and is located in Anda City, Heilongjiang Province, and resides in Anda, Heilongjiang Province city. The case was criminally detained on April 9, 2019, and was arrested on May 10, and is currently detained in the Anda City Detention Center.
The original judgment found that in April and May 2006, Meng Meng (sentenced) of Anda Ruima Liquefied Petroleum Gas Co., Ltd. (sentenced) was retaliated when the Anda Municipal Party Committee and Municipal Government decided to introduce natural gas pipelines, endangering the company’s interests Ren Anda’s secretary Limou 1 wanted to use the celebration salute (commonly known as marijuana leizi) to make an explosive device to revenge Limou 1.
After conspiracy with the company driver Li Mou 2 (sentenced) and the defendant Du Xinan, Meng Mou visited the State Tax Garden Community in Anda City where Li Mou 1 lived for many times. In June, Meng bought 46 ceremonial salutes, 8 whips, and 8 boxes of fireworks at the “permanent sundries shop” in the industrial wholesale market of Sartu District in Daqing City three times. He and Li 2 wore to Harbin to buy the crime. Clothing and a fishing rod used to place the explosive device, then drove with Li 2 and the defendant Du Xinan to the roadside of Harbin University to make an explosion experiment, and made an explosive device in Meng's office. Meng asked Li 2 to practice the installation of explosive devices with fishing rods in the company's compressor room.
The original judgment found that at 1 a.m. on July 3, 2006, Meng drove Li 2 to the west gate of Guoshui Garden Community. Li 2 used a fishing rod in the corridor to place the explosive device in Li 1 air-conditioning outdoor unit On the bracket, fled the scene after being lit. However, due to objective reasons, the explosive device failed to detonate. According to the identification of the Heilongjiang Provincial Public Security Department, when the explosive device exploded, the explosion overpressure could cause the death of people in the range of 0.7 meters, serious injuries to the people within 1 meter, and moderate injuries to the people within 1.4 meters. . The public security plane summoned Du Xinan to the case on April 9, 2019.
According to the statement of the criminal ruling, according to the statement of the victim Li1, it was confirmed that at 6 a.m. on July 3, 2006, the security guard at the east gate of the national tax residence where he lived said that an explosive was hung on the air conditioner outside the window of his home. The body is tied together, the fuse has been ignited, but it went out halfway, and its alarm.
The court of the first instance held that the defendant Du Xinan could plead guilty in court and take a lighter punishment. The public prosecution organ is clear about the facts of the crime accused by the defendant Du Xinan, the convictions are established, the applicable laws are correct, and should be supported. The defender of the defendant Du Xinan proposed that the defendant's subjective viciousness was not deep, was an accomplice, could plead guilty in court, and adopted the defense opinions of the first offender and the offender. The defendant Du Xin'an's defense proposal on the application of probation will not be accepted. The reason is that the defendant Du Xinan and others have committed crimes against public safety, which are more harmful to society and do not meet the conditions for probation, so they do not support it. According to the provisions of Article 114, Paragraph 1 of Article 25, Article 27 and Article 23 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, it was determined that the defendant Du Xinan was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment The next two years and six months.
After the sentence was pronounced, the defendant Du Xin'an sentenced the sentence to be too heavy and should be deemed a criminal suspension and appealed for a suspended sentence.
The Suihua Intermediate Court of the second instance court believed that the appellant Du Xinan had assisted Meng Mou and Li Mou 2 to make self-made explosive devices with ordinary celebration salutes, and later Li 2 placed the explosive devices with fishing rods. On a bracket of an air-conditioning outdoor unit of Li, he fled the scene after being ignited. Later, due to objective reasons, the explosive device failed to detonate. This case is a joint crime. During the joint crime, the appellant Du Xinan was an accomplice, and the penalty can be reduced according to law. The defendant Du Xinan in this case had already committed a crime. The criminals failed to succeed due to reasons other than the will of the criminals, which was an attempted crime. Therefore, the appeal grounds considered to be suspension of the crime could not be established and were not accepted. The original trial decision has fully considered the appellant as an accomplice, and the circumstances of sentencing such as an attempted crime, and the appropriate penalty for its sentencing. Therefore, the grounds of appeal for excessive sentencing should not be adopted. The court of the first instance determined that the appellant Du Xinan had committed the crime of bombing with clear facts, the evidence was reliable, sufficient, qualitative and accurate, and the sentence was appropriate. The trial procedure is legal. In accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling was dismissed and the original sentence was upheld.
(This article is from Surging News, for more original information, please download the "surging news" APP)
Surging news reporter Zhong Yuhao