CCTV News: Among the many cases that the media paid attention to in 2017, the Yu Huan intentional injury case deserves to be one of the most concerned cases. Faced with the insult of the mother being forced into debt, the son stabbed the other party to death with a knife. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment for intentional injury in the first instance. The ethics of filial piety and injury caused death in the public eye. How to make a fair ruling in judicial judgments has attracted high attention from the media and the public. The case was eventually sentenced to five years in prison after the second instance of the Shandong High Court. Let’s take a look at this case.
April 14, 2014 , Su Yinxia, the head of of Shandong Yuanda Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., and his son Yu Huan were restricted from personal freedom by 11 debt collectors for borrowing usury. The debt collector Du Zhihao insulted Su Yinxia, such as taking off her pants and exposing her genitals. After the police arrived, they did not effectively control the scene. After the police left the reception room, Yu Huan wanted to go out with the police and was stopped. In desperation, he injured someone with a knife, causing one death and three injuries.
, February 17, 2017, the Liaocheng Intermediate People's Court sentenced Huan to life imprisonment for intentional injury in the first instance. After the first instance judgment, the defendant Yu Huan and the victim were both dissatisfied and filed an appeal.
On May 27, 2017, the second trial of the senior people of Shandong Province held a public trial through the entire Weibo live broadcast. Whether Yu Huan's behavior constitutes legitimate defense is the focus of the trial of this case.
In the second trial of the trial of , the prosecutor appointed by the Shandong Provincial Procuratorate pointed out that the case was caused by illegal debt coercion and was a defensive injury case. The first-instance judgment did not determine the defensive nature and the law was wrongly applied.
The prosecutor further stated that Yu Huan's behavior is defensive, but it is an excessive defense.
Defense lawyer believes that Yu Huan belongs to self-defense and made a defense of innocence. The agents of the victims all objected to Huan's behavior as a legitimate defense or excessive defense. The victim Guo Yangang's agent believes that Su Yinxia was insulted and Yu Huan was beaten, but violent beatings against the two that seriously endangered their personal safety did not exist, which was not enough to cause a significant impact on life and health, and did not constitute a prerequisite for self-defense. Du Zhihao's attorney believes that Yu Huan's behavior is indirect intentional homicide.
Presiding Judge Yu Huan case explained the reasons for the retrial
During the trial, the prosecution and defense parties and the victim's litigation agents fully expressed their opinions. On June 23, 2017, the Shandong Higher People's Court made a first-instance judgment, deciding that Yu Huan constituted excessive defense and was sentenced to five years in prison.
Presiding Judge Wu Jing : "After the second instance trial, we believe that first , Yu Huan's act of stabbing Du Zhihao and four others with a knife is a matter of stopping the ongoing illegal infringement. His behavior is defensive. second , Yu Huan's behavior caused one person to die, two people seriously injured, and one person's minor injury is serious beyond the necessary limit, causing major damage, which is excessive defense and should bear corresponding criminal liability in accordance with the law. third , Yu Huan's purpose of stabbing is to prevent illegal infringement, and he wants to leave the reception room. The evidence in the case cannot prove that Yu Huan had the intention to let go or endanger the result, so Yu Huan's behavior does not constitute intentional homicide. Instead, intentional injury under excessive defense circumstances should constitute the crime of intentional injury. Given that Yu Huan's behavior is excessive defense, Yu Huan was able to truthfully confess his main crime after being arrested, and the victim was seriously faulted in insulting Yu Huan's mother. Therefore, we comprehensively considered the facts, nature, circumstances and harmful consequences of Yu Huan, and made a decision to mitigate the punishment according to law. Huan was sentenced to five years in prison for intentional injury. "
The second instance is a benign interaction between justice and public opinion,
gang-related, usury, police inaction, one death and three injuries, and exposure of the lower body to insult the mother. Each word is enough to touch the nerves of the public. The various questions and discussions surrounding this case quickly fermented on the Internet.How to respond to public doubts? How to use the legal balance to measure crime and punishment appropriately and give Yu Huan, a young man who has just entered society, a fair judgment? The Shandong High Court, which retried the case, chose to promote justice through openness and live broadcast of the trial of the case on Weibo. Finally, the Shandong High Court's reasonable and well-founded judgment was passed, and the fairness of the entity and procedure was achieved, and a vivid legal education class was taught to the whole people.
Legal experts believe that the second trial of Yu Huan case is standardized and orderly in the trial procedures, and protects the litigation rights of all parties to the litigation in accordance with the law. Especially on the issue of witnesses who have troubled criminal proceedings for more than ten years in court to testify, Yu Huan dared to let the victims and parties appear in court to testify in the second instance, so that "confrontation in court" can be realized.
Professor Chen Weidong, School of Law, Renmin University of China, , , : "According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, if the prosecution and defense have objections to witness testimony, and witness testimony has a significant impact on conviction and sentencing, they should appear in court to testify. This is to ensure that we objectively determine the authenticity of witness testimony, realize the original intention of reforming the litigation system with trial center, and realize judicial justice is very necessary. Therefore, I think this practice of the Shandong High Court is a very good demonstration role. In the future, when people's courts at all levels in the trial of criminal cases, witnesses should be allowed to go to court."
Social concern makes the trial of Yu Huan case more focused, but the balance of justice should not be swayed by the public opinion trend. "The people have something to call, and the judiciary responds." For cases that have become a public topic due to social concern, judicial organs must also assume social responsibility for answering and responding. Therefore, the public's right to know is responsible for the public's right to know. The second trial of the Yu Huan case was invited to attend the trial of more than 100 people including NPC deputies and CPPCC members, and the trial process of the case was broadcast live on the official Weibo of the Shandong High Court through pictures and texts and phased videos.
Professor of Beijing Normal University : "I think this is a kind of benign interaction. The media has paid attention to it and public opinion has raised many questions. The judiciary takes this as a clue to consider public opinion, but in the end it must be implemented in factual evidence and law. I think this is a benign interaction."
