China News Service, Qingdao, February 16 (Reporter Hu Yaojie) The Qingdao Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province held a public hearing on the second instance on the 16th to hear the dispute over the right to life between Jiang Qiulian and Liu Nuanxi (formerly known as Liu Xin). The judges formed a collegial panel to conduct the trial, and the appellant Liu Nuanxi and her attorney ad litem, and the appellee Jiang Qiulian's attorney ad litem appeared in court to participate in the proceedings.

　　On November 3, 2016, Jiang Qiulian's only daughter Jiang Ge was killed by Liu Nuanxi's ex-boyfriend Chen Shifeng in Tokyo, Japan.

Jiang Qiulian believes that in the murder of Jiang Ge, although Liu Nuanxi did not directly hurt anyone, he was at fault, and his fault had a direct causal relationship with Jiang Ge's death. He sued the People's Court of Chengyang District, Qingdao City for an order. Liu Nuanxi compensated more than 2.07 million yuan (RMB, the same below).

　　On January 10, 2022, the Chengyang Court made a first-instance verdict: Liu Nuanxi compensated Jiang Qiulian for various economic losses of 496,000 yuan and 200,000 yuan for mental damage consolation.

　　The appellant, Liu Nuanxi, refused to accept the first-instance verdict and appealed to the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court, requesting to revoke the first-instance verdict and remand the case for retrial or revise the judgment to dismiss all of Jiang Qiulian's claims.

The main reasons for the appeal are: the first-instance court omits the necessary co-litigation participants, which violates legal procedures; the basic factual evidence determined in the first-instance judgment is insufficient, resulting in an error in fact-finding; the first-instance judgment determines that the premise and reason for the appellant to bear civil compensation liability are untenable; The first-instance judgment that the appellant paid 200,000 yuan for mental damage consolation was unfounded; the first-instance court erred in applying the law.

　　The appellee argued that the procedure of the first instance was proper, and the court of the first instance had explained to both parties in the pretrial conference regarding the issue of the additional co-plaintiff and co-defendant.

The facts found in the first-instance judgment were clear and accurate, and supported by sufficient evidence.

The facts asserted by the appellant on appeal are not supported by any valid evidence.

In the appeal claim, the appellant shirks its own responsibility by fabricating facts and fabricating lies, and deviates from honesty.

The first-instance court applied the law correctly, and the appellant's subjective viciousness and the mental harm to the appellee could not be compensated for by the 200,000 yuan mental damage consolation fund.

Request to dismiss the appellant's appeal request and uphold the fair judgment of the first instance in accordance with the law.

　　During the trial, the collegial panel organized a court investigation and court debate. The two sides conducted sufficient evidence, cross-examination and debate on three key issues: whether the first instance violated legal procedures, whether Liu Nuanxi should bear the tort liability, and whether the amount of compensation determined by the first instance judgment was appropriate.

The appellant and the appellee's attorney-in-chief made their final statement.

　　After nearly 4 hours of trial, the collegial panel announced an adjournment, and the case will be pronounced on a scheduled date.

(Finish)