China News Service, Zhengzhou, December 20th (Reporter Liu Peng) On the morning of December 20th, the Intermediate People's Court of Kaifeng City, Henan Province issued a first-instance public judgment on the defendants Liu Mouyi and Liu Moujian in the case of intentional injury. The defendant Liu Mouyi was sentenced to life imprisonment and deprived of political rights for life; the defendant Liu Moujian was sentenced to eight years in prison; the defendants Liu Mouyi and Liu Moujian were ordered to jointly compensate the economic losses of the plaintiff in the civil lawsuit with a total of RMB 119,240.08 .

After the judgment of the first instance was pronounced, the plaintiff and defendant Liu Mouyi expressed their appeal in court with the incidental civil lawsuit, and the defendant Liu expressed in court that he would not appeal.

  On the same day, the presiding judge of the case gave detailed answers to a series of hot issues of social concern recently raised by the case.

Why did the actions of Liu Mouyi and Liu Moujian constitute the crime of intentional injury instead of intentional homicide?

  Judge: In the crime of intentional injury, subjectively, the perpetrator only has the intention to damage the health of others, and does not want the victim to die.

The crime of intentional homicide is different. The perpetrator either actively pursues the death of the victim or takes a laissez-faire attitude knowing that the victim may die. The result of the victim's death does not violate the perpetrator's will.

  Specifically in this case, the defendants Liu Mouyi and Liu Moujian had no conflict with the victim Ye Mouqing, and the dispute was only due to verbal discord after drinking.

The two defendants beat the victim by punching and kicking, and did not hold any crime tools.

Although the victim's head touched the ground when the victim was knocked down during the fight, Liu Mouyi stomped the victim's head, but then the victim got up and continued to fight with the defendant and walked around normally until he was sent home by fellow villagers.

At the hotel and the nearby gas station, the victim did not appear to be seriously injured and unable to move, and the two defendants did not chase him or show "doing nothing" when he left. Due to the reasons, means of injury, and the state of the victim after the end of the injury, the two defendants subjectively did not intend to illegally deprive the victim of life, which did not constitute the crime of intentional homicide.

However, the two defendants repeatedly beat the victim, and the victim eventually died of multiple organ failure mainly caused by the central nervous system due to severe craniocerebral injury. Intentional injury crime.

Is the defendant Liu Mouyi's behavior a legitimate self-defense?

  Presiding judge: According to the law, "in order to protect the state, public interests, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from the ongoing illegal infringement, the act of stopping the illegal infringement causes damage to the illegal infringer, It belongs to legitimate self-defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.” In this case, although Ye Mouqing tried to smash Liu’s art with a beer bottle, he was stopped immediately, and then Ye Mouqing smashed Liu’s art with a stainless steel basin and did not smash it. Among them, Liu Mouyi was pushed and pulled out of the restaurant by the persuading person, and then returned to fight with Ye Mouqing.

Judging from the whole fighting process, Liu Mouyi and Ye Mouqing both hit each other with bare hands, and the people present tried to dissuade them many times but failed to persuade them to leave.

Liu Mouyi did not meet the conditions of urgency and necessity of defense, and his actions did not constitute legitimate defense.

What are the main considerations for the sentencing of Liu Mouyi and Liu Moujian?

  Presiding judge: The sentence of life imprisonment for the defendant Liu Mouyi and eight years for the defendant Liu Moujian were made by the collegial panel and the judicial committee after repeated consideration and careful research.

According to the Criminal Law, whoever intentionally injures another person's body and causes death shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment or death.

The intentional injury committed by the second defendant in this case caused the serious consequences of the death of the victim Ye Mouqing, and also caused irreparable harm to the victim's family, and should be punished according to law.

  The following factors were mainly considered in the sentencing of this case: First, Ye Mouqing was responsible for triggering the case.

The evidence in the case shows that Ye Mouqing mocked Liu Mouyi’s elder brother Liu Mouyan for not being able to use the mobile phone QR code to collect money that night, belittling Liu Mouyan’s father-in-law who has passed away for many years, which caused Liu Mouyi and Liu Mouyan’s displeasure. After a verbal conflict with Liu Mouyi, Ye Mouqing held a beer bottle and tried to smash Liu Mouyi, and the two got into a fight.

Judging from the antecedents of the case, Ye Mouqing was responsible for triggering the case.

The second is that the defendant Liu saw that he was an accomplice in the joint crime, and his punishment could be mitigated according to law.

The evidence in the case shows that Liu saw that at first he hugged Ye Mouqing's waist for the purpose of persuading a fight, and then punched Ye Mouqing after he was beaten due to the chaos at the scene, and then kicked Ye Mouqing at the gas station. The time, motivation, and behavior of Ajian’s participation in the crime, etc., and Liu’s role in the joint crime should be identified as an accessory, and the punishment can be mitigated according to law.

The third is that in this case, the two defendants pleaded not guilty in court, Liu Mouyi refused to make civil compensation, and Liu Moujian expressed his willingness to mediate but did not actually compensate.

The close relatives of the victim did not forgive the two defendants and other factors.

Therefore, considering the antecedents of the crime, the means of committing the crime, the status of the principal and accomplices, the consequences of the crime, and the circumstances of confession and repentance, the court imposed the aforementioned sentencing on the two defendants within the statutory range.

The family members of the victim reported that the criminal suspect Liu Mouyan was omitted. According to your trial, is there such a situation?

  Presiding Judge: The public prosecution agency in this case only accused Liu Mouyi and Liu Moujian of committing crimes, and the court only tried the defendants and criminal facts charged in the indictment.

According to the evidence currently on file, the two witnesses surnamed Ye among the participants in the wine bureau that night did say that they saw Liu Mouyan and participated in beating the victim when they testified for the first time, but the two witnesses later responded to "seeing Liu Mouyan" He denied the testimony of “beating someone” and claimed that the first testimony was inaccurate. Liu Mouyan only persuaded the fight in the middle and did not participate in the beating, and the subsequent testimony was stable and consistent.

The content of the testimony of the two witnesses surnamed Ye about "Liu Mouyan did not participate in the fight" is consistent with the statement of Liu Mouyi, Liu Mouyan's own testimony and other witnesses at the scene.

Therefore, the existing evidence cannot determine that Liu Mouyan participated in intentional injury.

  After the case happened, the close relatives of the victim Ye Mouqing reported that "when the case happened, the defendant called the village party secretary of Houtang village to call someone, and the village party secretary drove a van and drove a car of people to the crime scene with murder weapons. Village tyrants and underworld forces who use their power for personal gain." Do the underworld forces reflected by the victim's close relatives exist?

  Presiding judge: The relevant evidence in the case shows that after the fight that night, Liu Mouguo, Liu Mouyi's daughter, called her mother Wu Mou, and Wu Mou arrived at the scene.

After another conflict at the gas station, Liu Moujian fell to the ground and couldn't get up. Wu and Liu Mouyi called Liu Moujian's younger brother Liu Mouquan by phone successively, saying that Liu Moujian had been beaten.

Because Liu Mouquan and his wife Wang Mouying were driving on the highway at the time, Wang Mouying contacted the village party secretary of the village and asked him to visit the scene.

The on-site surveillance video showed that the Party Secretary of Houtang Village arrived at the scene by car alone, but it did not show that there were other people in his car or that someone was holding a murder weapon. When he arrived at the scene, the village cadres and others from the victim's village were also present, and the fight had already ended. End.

Therefore, the problem reported by the victim does not match the evidence on file.

  After the case happened, the close relatives of the victim Ye Mouqing reported that "Ye Mouqing was beaten. After the masses called 110 to call the police, the Banmu Police Station left the scene without knowing the situation in detail. The inaction of the Banmu Police Station contributed to the death of his father."

Did the inaction of the Banmu Police Station promote the death of the victim as reported by the victim's close relatives?

  Judge: Judging from the evidence in the case, when the fight happened on the evening of June 28, 2021, the daughter of the defendant Liu Mouyi contacted her mother Wu Mou. Seeing that Liu was knocked to the ground by the opponent's person.

Wu called 110 at 22:41 that night to call the police, and the police from Banmu Police Station arrived at the scene at 22:51.

The law enforcement recorder video showed that Ye Mouqing was no longer at the scene when the police arrived, and there were only Liu Mouyi, Liu Moujian and others at the scene. Wu claimed that he was the one who called the police and that Liu Mouyi was beaten.

The police questioned Liu Moujian and Liu Mouyi at the scene, but both of them were unable to fully describe the incident due to drinking. Later, Liu Mouyi and Liu Moujian were picked up by relatives and friends. The police told them that if they felt unwell, they could go to the hospital first. To see a doctor, if you need to report the case, you can go to the police station the next day to solve it.

The evidence in the case also shows that at 22:59 that night, Ye Mouqing was sent home, got out of the car and walked into the house by himself, then walked in the courtyard by himself and called others.

In the early morning of the 29th, Ye Mouqing felt unwell. At 0:29, Ye Mouqing's wife Li Mouxiang called 120, and Ye Mouqing was sent to the hospital for treatment.

At 2:36, Ye Mouhuan, the daughter of Ye Mouqing, called the police and said that her family members had been beaten to cause cerebral hemorrhage, and the hospital had issued a critical illness notice.

The Banmu Police Station learned about the situation immediately after receiving the police, and at around 4 o'clock, they went to Liu Mouyi's home to summon him to the case and interrogated him. Liu Mouyi confessed that Liu Moujian also participated in the fight.

At about 7 o'clock that day, the police went to Liu's home and summoned Liu to the case.

The public security organ opened a case for investigation on June 30.

Therefore, judging from the current evidence in the case, it does not show that there is a problem of inaction by the Banmu Police Station, and there is no causal relationship between the death of the victim and the police behavior of the Banmu Police Station.

(use up)