China News Network, April 4 According to the WeChat public account of "Anyuan Court", at 28 pm on April 2023, 4, the Anyuan District People's Court of Pingxiang City, Jiangxi Province publicly pronounced a judgment in the first instance of the defendants Wu Junbao, Ren Weiqiang, Zhang Shun, Qu Wenkuan, and Chen Bin in the criminal incidental civil litigation case of illegal detention.

After trial, the court ascertained that on May 2013, 5, the defendants Wu Junbao, Ren Weiqiang and others jointly funded the establishment of the "Nanchang Qingshan Lake District Yuzhang Academy Self-cultivation Education Specialized School", and on November 16, 2017, the school was cancelled and suspended after approval. During the period of running the school, the defendants Wu Junbao, Ren Weiqiang and others illegally carried out the so-called "Morita therapy" related to psychotherapy and mental disorder treatment activities on the students of the school, that is, some students were taken to the "boring relief room" for confinement, and arranged for personnel to supervise them, each time for a period ranging from 11 to 3 days, illegally depriving the students of their personal freedom. Defendant Zhang Shun was responsible for managing the guards and participated in shift guarding with defendant Qu Wenkuan. The defendant Chen Bin was a teacher, and when there were insufficient guards, he participated in shift duty according to the school's arrangement. Defendants Wu Junbao, Ren Weiqiang, Zhang Shun, and Chen Bin arrived at the case on November 2019, 11 after being notified by the public security organ by telephone; Defendant Qu Wenkuan was arrested on November 12, 2019.

During the trial, defendants Wu Junbao, Ren Weiqiang, Zhang Shun, and Qu Wenkuan published an apology statement in the New Rule of Law Daily, publicly apologizing to the murdered students and the public for their criminal acts.

After hearing, the court held that the defendants Wu Junbao, Ren Weiqiang, Zhang Shun, Qu Wenkuan, and Chen Bin illegally deprived others of their personal freedom in the course of running the school, and their acts constituted the crime of illegal detention, and the public prosecution charged them with the crime. Taking into account the facts, nature, and circumstances of each defendant's crime, as well as their status and role in the joint crime, taking into account the mitigating circumstances of punishment such as the defendant's voluntary surrender, confession, admission of guilt and accepting punishment, as well as the circumstances of the aggravating punishment for crimes committed against minors, taking into account the circumstances of the crime and the need to prevent further offending, and in accordance with the sentencing recommendations of the procuratorial organs, it was decided to apply the prohibition measures to the defendant while imposing a criminal sentence, and then sentenced the defendant Wu Junbao to two years and ten months' imprisonment and a ban on engaging in education-related occupations for five years; Defendant Ren Weiqiang was sentenced to two years and seven months in prison and banned from engaging in education-related occupations for five years; Defendant Zhang Shun was sentenced to one year and ten months in prison and banned from engaging in education-related occupations for three years; Defendant Qu Wenkuan was sentenced to 11 months' imprisonment and banned from engaging in education-related occupations for three years; Defendant Chen Bin was exempted from criminal punishment.

The plaintiff's claim for compensation for tuition fees, transportation expenses to and from Yuzhang College, transportation expenses for rights protection, lawyer fees, and compensation for moral damage in the incidental civil action does not fall within the scope of material losses suffered by the victim due to criminal infringement of personal rights or destruction of property by criminals, and is not supported according to law; The plaintiff's claim for compensation for economic losses such as treatment expenses and medical expenses by the plaintiff in the incidental civil action was not supported according to law because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove it. In summary, the claim of the plaintiff in the incidental civil action is dismissed in accordance with the law.

After the first-instance verdict was pronounced, the defendants Wu Junbao, Ren Weiqiang, Zhang Shun, Qu Wenkuan, and Chen Bin all expressed their acceptance of the verdict and not appeal; The plaintiffs Zhou Moumou and Zhao Moumou of the incidental civil action appealed in court, and the defendant Zeng Moumou of the incidental civil action expressed his acceptance of the judgment and did not appeal.