Author: Pang Liangcheng Source: Guangzhou People's Procuratorate
At around 13:00 on March 24, 2016, the construction unit Guangzhou Jiexin Communication Engineering Co., Ltd. constructed a fiber optic wire rope on a section of a certain section of the road in a district of Guangzhou. During the construction, safety warning signs and protective measures were not set up at the construction site.
At around 13:30 that day, Yan Moujie drove a light van from south to north along the east side of a special road in a district of Guangzhou to the detention center section of a certain district, and collided with the steel rope used for construction and pulled horizontally on the road surface, causing severe craniocerebral injury, left ankle breakage and soft tissue damage to the construction worker Wang Mouyan on the east side of the road. After the accident, Yan Moujie got off the car to check and then drove away from the scene.
is determined by the road traffic accident identification form of Huadu Brigade of the Traffic Police Detachment of the Guangzhou Public Security Bureau: Yan Moujie bears the main responsibility for the accident, Guangzhou Jiexin Communication Engineering Co., Ltd. bears the secondary responsibility for the accident, and Wang Mouyan does not bear the responsibility for the accident. On December 6, 2016, it was inspected and identified by the Public Security Judicial Appraisal Center in a district of Guangzhou that Wang Mouyan's injury was first-degree serious injury. After the accident, Wang Mouyan was sent to Southern Hospital for treatment.
From May 26 to July 19, 2016 and March 10 to 16, 2017, Wang Mouyan was hospitalized twice at the People's Hospital of Dawu County, Hubei Province, and was taken back to her home in Yangping Village, Yangping Town, Dawu County for treatment.
On March 20, 2017, the victim Wang Mouyan died at home. After identification, the victim Wang Mouyan died of craniocerebral injury and lung infection (craniopia injury accounts for at least the main factor in his death).
The Huadu District Branch of Guangzhou Public Security Bureau transferred Yan Moujie to the People's Procuratorate of Guangzhou Huadu District for review and prosecution on suspicion of traffic accidents. The court filed a public prosecution with the People's Court of Guangzhou Huadu District on March 27, 2017. The People's Court of Guangzhou Huadu District changed from simple procedures to ordinary procedures on April 14, 2017, and made a first-instance judgment on May 29, 2018, sentenced Yan Moujie to one year and two months in prison for traffic accidents. After the verdict was announced, Yan Moujie was dissatisfied and filed an appeal.
On November 25, 2019, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance judgment after a trial, ruling Yan Moujie not guilty.
Brief analysis of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance judgment
This case occurred on March 24, 2016. The Huadu District Public Security Judicial Appraisal Center of Guangzhou issued an appraisal opinion on Wang Mouyan's injury degree of first degree seriously injured on December 6, 2016. On the same day, the public security organs summoned Yan Moujie to the case and criminally detained. The procuratorate approved the arrest of Yan Moujie on December 30, 2016. At this time, the victim had no death result. On March 20, 2017, the victim Wang Mouyan died at home after treatment.
It is worth noting that the procuratorate did not determine the fact that the criminal fact that the traffic accident caused Wang Mouyan to seriously injured when filing a public prosecution to the court on March 27, 2017. It is not known whether it was because Wang Mouyan's death was more than one year since the incident occurred, and there were factors of self-treatment at home, and the causal relationship could not be determined. However, from the litigation process from the approval of arrest to the initiation of public prosecution, when the procuratorate determined that the victim Wang Mouyan was seriously injured, it still believed that Yan Moujie constituted the crime of traffic accident. This situation was the same as the aforementioned Zhu Moulin's traffic accident.
During the first instance trial, Yan Moujie argued that he did not escape and believed that the accident had nothing to do with it. It was due to a curious psychological onlooker, and he did not know whether his behavior constituted a crime. The defense lawyer's defense opinion is: Yan Moujie's driving behavior did not violate road traffic safety laws and regulations. Under the circumstances at that time, Yan Moujie could not ask Yan Moujie to notice that there were steel wires on the road, and it was even more impossible to ask Yan Moujie to stop urgently. Yan Moujie was unforeseeable about the accident. After the accident, Yan Moujie immediately stopped the car because he was in a hurry to deliver the goods and thought it had nothing to do with him, which did not constitute escape in the criminal law; the determination of responsibility for the accident was incorrect, and illegally placed obstacles in the unit where the victim was located was the main reason for the occurrence of this case. The construction unit should bear the main responsibility for the accident, and the victim was also at fault and should bear the secondary responsibility for the accident, and requested that Yan Moujie be acquitted.
The first-instance judgment did not adopt the defense of the defendant and the defense lawyer, and believed that Yan Moujie violated the transportation management regulations and had a major traffic accident, causing a person to die after being seriously injured and fled after the accident, and was mainly responsible for the accident. His behavior constituted the crime of causing a traffic accident.
Yan Moujie's confession and video materials, investigation records and testimony of relevant witnesses are mutually verified, which is enough to prove that Yan Moujie knows that the vehicle he is driving still flees the scene after the accident, which constitutes an act of escape. The road traffic accident identification certificate issued by the public security organs was made in accordance with the law, and objectively evaluated and determined the responsibility of all parties to the accident. The above-mentioned road traffic accident identification certificate should be adopted, and Yan Moujie should be punished according to law, which is subject to punishment of the sentencing range of "in prison for less than three years or detention" should be applied to Yan Moujie. Taking into account Yan Moujie's surrender situation, remorse attitude and compensation circumstances in this case, Yan Moujie was sentenced to one or two months in prison. After the first instance verdict was announced, Yan Moujie appealed: the facts determined by the original trial were unclear and the law was applied incorrectly. He did not violate the transportation management regulations, did not operate improperly in this traffic accident, nor did he make up for the crime of causing a traffic accident, and he requested the court to re-sincerely sentenced. The defense lawyer's defense opinion believes that the traffic accident in this case is mainly caused by the construction unit's failure to set up safety warning signs at the construction site, illegally setting up obstacles, and the victim's sudden pulling up steel wires, causing Yan Moujie's car to collide with the steel wires. Yan Moujie is driving normally and should not bear the main responsibility in this traffic accident. Moreover, Yan Moujie has no subjective intention to escape. His behavior does not constitute the crime of causing a traffic accident. The facts were found in the first instance were wrong and requested to be corrected in accordance with the law by the second instance court.
Judging from the above-mentioned litigation process and opinions from all parties, the first instance procuratorial and judicial differences mainly lie in the fact that the victim was seriously injured or died. It should be said that the first instance court ruled that the death result of the traffic accident was more objective and accurate, because the judicial appraisal letter of the Kangyisi Appraisal Center, which was supplemented with cross-examination in the first instance, has confirmed that the victim Wang Mouyan died of a skull-brain injury and a pulmonary infection, and the skull-brain injury accounted for at least the main factor in his death, which is enough to prove the fact of death in the traffic accident. The problem is that the first instance procuratorate and court fully accept the determination of responsibility for road traffic accidents by the public security organs in this case. It made mistakes when determining Yan Moujie's subjective fault, and did not find the repeated evaluation issues in the determination of the ideas and reasons for this case. The defense's defense opinion on the determination of responsibility for this case and Yan Moujie's subjective fault is worthy of attention and adoption.
The reason for the re-sin of the second instance to be acquitted
The second instance judgment is divided into three levels for argumentation and reasoning:
▣ First, it is about whether Yan Moujie has subjective negligence in causing this accident.
In this accident, the construction unit did not obtain the consent of the public security traffic management department during the road construction, nor did it set up any safety warning signs or take protective measures. The construction personnel did not have the relevant qualifications to work. They placed wire ropes across four lanes on the main roads of the city's traffic without interrupting traffic, posing huge safety hazards for normal traffic.
The braking system and direction system of the small truck driven by Yan Moujie are qualified and are driving normally on normal roads. There is no evidence to prove that he violates operating specifications and drives unsafely or civilizedly.
Without construction warning signs, no obvious obstacles on the road, and the vehicle ahead is in normal traffic, the driver cannot be demanded that the sudden pull of the wire rope cannot be foreseeable and timely measures to effectively avoid the occurrence of accidents. Article 16 of the Criminal Law stipulates that "although the act objectively causes damage, it is not caused by intentional or negligence, but due to irresistance or unforeseeable reasons, and is not a crime." Yan Moujie could not foresee the occurrence of the accident and did not have subjective negligence for the cause of this traffic accident.
▣ The second is about whether it can be presumed that Yan Moujie bears the main responsibility for the accident through escape.
The reason why the traffic police department determined that Yan Moujie was mainly responsible for the accident was that he fled after the traffic accident.
The provisions of Article 92, paragraph 1 of the "Implementation Regulations of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China" are only applicable when one party escapes and objective evidence cannot determine responsibility. It is a presumption of responsibility, not a determination of causal relationship in criminal law.
However, the accident in this case did not determine the cause of the accident due to escape. The surveillance video, witness testimony, defendant's confession and other evidence can be sufficient to find out that the main cause of the accident was caused by illegal construction, not caused by Yan Moujie's violation, and Yan Moujie's main responsibility for the accident is not in line with objective facts. Therefore, this case should consider whether to adopt the responsibility determination of the traffic police department based on the specific circumstances of the case, and it cannot be simply used as the legal basis for determining criminal liability.
▣ The third is the question of whether the escape behavior is repeated.
According to relevant judicial interpretations, escape behavior can be combined with serious injury to more than one person, full or main responsibility for the accident, as a condition for the crime of causing a traffic accident.
The victim of this case died at home on March 20, 2017. When the original public prosecution agency filed a lawsuit on March 27, 2017, the indictment did not charge the fact that the victim was dead. The traffic police department determined that Yan Moujie was mainly responsible for the escape, but not the main responsibility for the escape. The original public prosecution agency also charged the escape as a requirement for the crime, which violated the principle of prohibiting repeated evaluation of the same fact.
finally believes that although Yan Moujie's behavior caused damage, it was not caused by intentional or negligence, but due to unforeseeable reasons, not a crime, and the first instance judgment was revoked, and Yan Moujie was not guilty.
It should be said that the conclusion of innocence in the second instance judgment is correct, and the reasons and levels of analysis of the problem are also enlightening. But from the perspective of legal theory and logic, there are also areas worth discussing and thinking about.
The determination of accident liability for traffic accident cases is generally determined based on whether or not the cause and size of the major accidents committed by the perpetrator who violates the transportation management regulations, that is, the responsibility is based on the cause. This is also the starting point for understanding the causal relationship between the harmful behavior and the harmful consequences in the traffic accident crime. As an administrative prisoner, the crime of traffic accidents must be based on the violation of transportation management regulations. If the preconditions are lacking, there is no logical starting point for evaluating the crime of traffic accidents, nor is it a harmful behavior in the sense of criminal law.
Returning to this case, the second-instance judgment held that Yan Moujie was driving normally on a normal road, and there was no evidence to prove that he was driving safely or civilized in violation of operating specifications. This was used as a basic fact that he could not foresee the accident subjectively and did not have subjective faults, and he should not bear the main responsibility.
, but it did not further clarify whether it was not to bear any responsibility or secondary responsibility, which would affect the standardized evaluation and logical self-consistentness of the unexpected incident in this case.
According to Article 16 of the Criminal Law, an accident refers to the fact that although the act objectively causes damage, it is not caused by intentional or negligence, but due to unforeseeable reasons. It emphasizes that the act of the perpetrator has a causal relationship with the damage result and has a causal force.
If Yan Moujie's behavior in this case does not constitute an illegal act in the crime of traffic accident and he will not be responsible for the accident, the objectivity of the causal relationship will be difficult to reflect. Even if the perpetrator is subjectively at fault, it is not an accident. It just does not affect the result of the innocent lawsuit, but it will be related to the accuracy of the judgment reasoning.
As for the reasoning about repeated evaluation in the second instance judgment, it is indeed an error in the accusation of the first instance public prosecution agency, but the second instance judgment is mainly a review and evaluation of the first instance judgment. The reason for the initiation of the second instance procedure is that the defendant is dissatisfied with the first instance judgment.
Therefore, if the issue of repeated evaluation is involved, it should be based on the first instance judgment that the victim's damage result should be determined from the perspective of the fact that the first instance judgment changes the determination of the victim's damage in the allegations of the public prosecution agency, it is more convincing and can encourage professional communities, including the first instance judicial organs and judges, to strengthen professional capacity building and improve judicial credibility through reflection.
points share
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-