"This ti... I can surely get the sentence reduced!"
He took a deep breath, his eyes blazing with intense fighting spirit.
After so many cases, he had discovered that as long as his opponent was Qin Mu, he seldom succeeded in his defense. Even if he perford excellently, there would always be complications: soone would commit perjury in court, insult the judge, or create a disturbance in the courtroom. He seldom achieved breakthrough results in sentence reduction.
This case... is indeed a bit tricky, he thought.
Subsequently, he took out his computer and began analyzing the defense strategy.
The case originated from the replacent of auto parts. It was originally governed by the "Three Guarantees Law" but had suddenly been moved under the Penal Code.
The actions of the defendants, Niu Huan and Chang Yingcai, duly constituted theft. They perfectly t all the requirents for a theft conviction; it was unavoidable, and criminal responsibility was inescapable. Furthermore, their multiple acts of stealing parts, substituting inferior ones, and attempting to conceal the cri constituted aggravating circumstances. According to the relevant penal law, they would be sentenced to three to ten years of fixed-term imprisonnt and fined.
Additionally, the sentencing range would also be calculated based on the value of the parts Niu Huan and Chang Yingcai had stolen for profit. The more profit they gained, the heavier the sentencing would be.
Zhang Wei furrowed his brow, thinking carefully. There seem to be no mitigating circumstances in this case.
He couldn’t find any circumstances applicable for statutory sentence reduction. In fact, there were over twenty recognized grounds for sentence reduction. These included the defendant being a minor, disabled, ntally ill, pregnant, or elderly; or circumstances such as ergency justification, attempted cri, discontinued cri, cri committed under duress, incited cri, being an accessory, performing ritorious service, or voluntary surrender.
However, Niu Huan’s case perfectly avoided all these grounds.
First, Niu Huan and Chang Yingcai were both adults with full criminal capacity, not minors.
Second, they were arrested because the police were called; this did not constitute voluntary surrender.
Third, neither belonged to a protected group, such as pregnant won, the elderly, the disabled, or the ntally ill.
Fourth, their theft of parts was deliberate and for illegal profit, so the conditions for an attempted or discontinued cri weren’t t.
In summary, the scope for sentence reduction was very small.
It seems that actively pleading guilty and accepting punishnt is the only way to argue for a sentence reduction. But that would, at best, reduce the sentence by only a month or two. For a ten-year sentence, that’s negligible.
Zhang Wei pondered for a mont, murmuring to himself, It looks like I can only argue for embezzlent...
According to the Penal Code, theft with aggravating circumstances is punishable by three to ten years of fixed-term imprisonnt and a fine.
For embezzlent, however... the sentencing seems sowhat lighter. Article 270 of the Penal Code states that illegally appropriating another’s property held in custody, if the amount is large and return is refused, is punishable by up to two years of fixed-term imprisonnt, criminal detention, or a fine. If the amount is huge or other aggravating circumstances exist, the punishnt is two to five years of fixed-term imprisonnt, along with a fine. Even with aggravating circumstances, this cri carries a maximum of only five years! Whereas theft... can carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonnt! For instance, stealing national treasures or valuable cultural relics.
These two cris seem similar, but there are significant differences. Generally, they differ in the content and timing of criminal intent. In embezzlent, the perpetrator realizes they are unlawfully appropriating—through non-violent ans—another’s property already in their possession. The criminal intent arises after coming into possession of the property. For instance, if a taxi driver finds a passenger’s lost cellphone at the end of their shift and decides to keep it, this would not be theft but embezzlent. Theft, however, typically involves knowing that another person possesses or owns the property and then secretly stealing it. This involves direct intent from the outset, like pickpockets on buses or petty thieves.
Furthermore, embezzlent also requires that the perpetrator refuses to return the property after the fact, constituting forcible misappropriation. Theft, however, has no such requirent; even if the stolen goods are discovered and voluntarily returned, the cri is still complete!
So, the Three Guarantees Law doesn’t apply to this incident. Even if compensation of three tis the value is paid, criminal responsibility must still be pursued. But these two charges do share so common ground. For example, embezzlent requires the illegal appropriation of another’s property that was entrusted to one’s care. Qin Mu left his car at the 4S shop’s repair departnt for service, so an act of custody exists. Therefore, arguing that Niu Huan and Chang Yingcai committed unlawful appropriation is plausible.
Zhang Wei took a deep breath and carefully organized his defense strategy. The key issue lies in the determination of the charges, he thought. As long as I can successfully argue the charge down from theft to embezzlent, I’ll secure the maximum possible sentence reduction. To achieve this, I need to focus on the constituent elents of the cris and the defendants’ motives.
He frowned. It seems I need to et the defendants.
Sohow, he had a rather uneasy premonition.
「Nursing Ho」
After patiently waiting for a day, Qin Mu went to the 4S shop again and drove his much-troubled car back.
While at the 4S shop, he noticed everyone was looking at him strangely, a distinct change from before.
User Comments
0 comments from readers