How Do I Appeal Claims Adjudication?

A criminal appeal is a legal document in which a defendant, a victim in a public prosecution case, or a private prosecutor in a private prosecution case refuses to accept the ruling of the court of first instance. During the statutory appeal period, the appeal is submitted to the superior court of the trial court to review the sentence. The plaintiff and defendant in a criminal incidental civil case may also appeal against the civil compensation part and use such an instrument. It is a legal document that arouses the second instance, and it is of great significance to promote the second instance court to insist on correct ruling or correct wrong judgment. The criminal appeal is the basis on which the people's court of second instance accepts the case for trial.

Criminal appeal

Right!

Criminal appeal is criminal

What is the basic format of a criminal appeal:

Criminal appeal is criminal

Criminal appeal

The appellant (the defendant in the original trial) Qiu Mingzhi, male, was born on January 12, 1977, ID number 359002197701122055, Han nationality, technical secondary school, household registration location: No. 37, Gangdong District, Jinshang Town, Shishi City, Fujian Province. The case was criminally detained by the Shenzhen Customs Anti-Smuggling Bureau on January 15, 2006, and arrested on February 22 of the same year. He is now being held in Shenzhen No. 3 Detention Center.

Reason for appeal:

The appellant was sentenced to 15 years in prison for the smuggling of common goods on August 6, 2008 for the criminal judgment of Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province (2007) Shenzhong Fa Xunzi No. 20 (hereinafter referred to as the original judgment) for smuggling common goods. And appealed with a fine of RMB 1,188,901,107.7.

Matters for appeal:

Requested the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court to correct the false judgment of the appellant's criminal facts in the original judgment, the wrong appraisal of the appellant as the main offender of the joint crime, and the wrong judgment of negating the appellant's meritorious performance. , To reduce the punishment of the appellant according to law.

Facts and grounds on which the appeal is based:

I. The original judgment found that the facts were seriously wrong.

(1) The original trial verdict found that: "... the defendants Qiu Mingzhi and Qiu Jinlai each contributed RMB700,000 ... the defendants Qiu Jinlai and Qiu Mingzhi each had a smuggling profit of 700,000 yuan in 2003 ... both were converted to 2004 Investing ... (see page 21 of the original trial decision) This is wrong.

The appellant was invited by Lu Chengpin and Lu Chengdian in 2004 to do some accounting for them under the leadership of Lu Chengdian. Therefore, there is no fact that the appellant obtained a smuggling profit of RMB 700,000 in 2003 and turned the RMB 700,000 into an investment in 2004. The fact that the appellant did not contribute RMB 700,000 can be confirmed in the general dividend distribution table prepared by Lu Chengdian. In the dividends list, only the appellant's dividend of 420,000 yuan, and no record of the appellant's contribution, is the best proof. Because the so-called capital contribution of 700,000 yuan is similar to some unscrupulous businessmen in the society giving dry shares to corrupt officials, Lu Chengpin, Lu Chengdian and others gave it to the appellant. In fact, the appellant did not make any capital contribution;

(2) The judgment of the original trial stated: "About the identification of the defendant's Lu Chengpin and others' funding. The defendants Lu Chengpin and Qiu Mingzhi confessed during the investigation stage. The five brothers of the Lu family contributed 4 million yuan each, and Qiu Mingzhi contributed 700,000 yuan ... Qiu Mingzhi and Qiu Jinlai each had a profit of 700,000 yuan, which was directly transferred to the investment in 2004 ... "(see page 59 of the original trial decision for details), and based on this, the appellant made a profit of 700,000 yuan in 2003, which is a mistake of.

During the investigation phase of the case, the appellant had not made any confession and explanation as mentioned in the original trial decision review. Even if the appellant made such a confession and explanation, it was not mentioned in the original trial decision, and the appellant invested 700,000 yuan in exchange for the land. As mentioned earlier, the so-called 700,000 yuan investment is just an "imaginary number" sent by Lu Chengpin and Lu Chengdian to the appellant, and it is a benchmark figure for Lu Chengpin and Lu Chengdian to pay the appellant in the future;

(3) The original trial verdict found that the appellant was responsible for managing the funds of Lu Chengpin and Lu Chengdian's smuggling gang (for details, see pages 22 and 26 of the original trial verdict), it was wrong.

The appellant only worked for Lu Chengpin and Lu Chengdian's smuggling gangs. Lu Chengdian was the actual, true manager, controller, and account manager of the smuggling gang's funds. The general ledger of the gang is made by Lu Chengdian. His accounts include the name of the "shareholder", the amount of shares, profit sharing, the number of goods, variety and so on. The appellant was under the direct leadership of Lu Chengdian from beginning to end to assist him in his work and accepted his supervision. The accounts I have recorded are only preliminary, and the final result is subject to the verification of Lu Chengdian. The appellant's bookkeeping and reconciliation calculation of profit sharing, and checking the accounts with Lin Jinzhou, Lin Zenghui, etc., receiving and paying for goods, and paying wages, are all in accordance with Lu Chengdian's instructions. The appellant strongly requested a handwriting appraisal to rule out the improper determination of the original judgment against the appellant;

(4) The original trial verdict found that "Lu Chengpin, on behalf of the appellant, Lu Chengdian, and others, invested in the smuggling of cigarettes in the waters of Huiyang with Lin Jinzhou, Cai Xiangmeng, etc.", which was wrong. (See page 26 of the original judgment). The appellant did not know that Lu Chengpin, on behalf of himself, invested in the smuggling of cigarettes with Lin Jinzhou, Cai Xiangmeng and others in the waters of Huiyang, and the smuggling profit distribution with Lin Jinzhou, Cai Xiangmeng and others in proportion. As mentioned earlier, the appellant's actions were completed in accordance with Lu Chengdian's instructions and assisted Lu Chengdian;

(5) The appellant has never seen the goods involved in the case, so why did the appellant participate in smuggling and evading taxes on cigarettes worth 1,188,901,107.70?

(6) The original trial verdict held: "On the evidence validity of the defendant Qiu Mingzhi's U-disk data recovery.... The U-disk account should be included in the scope of documentary evidence, and the evidence obtained should be legal. The criminal facts in this case are closely related, fully in line with the characteristics of the evidence, have the effect of evidence, and should be accepted. "(See page 58 of the original trial decision.) The appellant believes that this judgment and determination is wrong.

The two USB flash drives are not direct physical evidence (cigarettes). The contents of the two USB flash drives were entered by the appellant based on written materials provided by Lu Chengdian. The authenticity of the appellants could not be confirmed at all. However, in the investigative stage, when facing strong investigators and apparently weak appellants, it is impossible to confirm the contents of the two USB flash drives without complying with the requirements of the investigators.

It should also be pointed out that there are unreadable parts on the two USB flash drives. Is there a component that is beneficial to the appellant? Now that Lu Chengdian is at large, it is impossible to verify the authenticity, so this possibility cannot be ruled out. Without the seizure of smuggled goods, that is, cigarettes, two USB flash drives and identification conclusions alone are not enough to prove that the appellant's crime amounted to 1,188,901,107.70 yuan.

2. The original judgment found that the appellant was the principal culprit in the case, which was wrong. The appellant was an accomplice in the case and should be given a mitigated punishment in accordance with the law.

(1) Judging from the subjective aspect of the crime, the appellant had no intention of participating in the smuggling crime. The reason why the appellant was involved in the smuggling activities in this case was completely caused by the lumping, lure, and instruction of Lu Chengdian and Lu Chengpin. This fact is objectively identified in the prosecution opinion of the investigating agency and the indictment of the public prosecution agency, and the court investigation of the original trial court has also verified that the appellant is not fully qualified to play a major role in the subjective aspect of the crime;

(2) From the objective aspect of the crime, the appellant was subject to the division of labor by Lu Chengpin. Under the instructions of Lu Chengdian, he was responsible for bookkeeping and reconciliation, calculating the profit share of smuggling, checking the accounts with Lin Jinzhou and Lin Zenghui, receiving and paying the goods, and paying wages. . What's more, the appellant's actions were carried out under the supervision of Lu Chengdian. All the appellant's actions must be submitted to Lu Chengdian for final approval and accountable to Lu Chengdian. On page 9 and page 14 of the indictment opinion in this case, respectively, the registration of fund-raising and smuggling funds, the calculation of profit in each link of smuggling, and the distribution of dividends are calculated and recorded by Lu Chengdian. Smuggling recorded by Lu Chengdian in 2005 In the red list of illegal scores, the dividends of real estate investment have been calculated ... "" The above criminal facts have been seized ...... the documentary evidence such as the contribution of shareholders recorded by Lu Chengdian and the smuggling of the red list of illegal scores ... and other supporting documents.

--------

In summary, the appellant's role in the criminal activities of joint smuggling is secondary and should be identified as an accomplice in accordance with law.

3. The original trial rejected the defendant's meritorious performance.

The original trial found that: "The defendant Qiu Mingzhi truthfully confessed the smuggling account during the investigation stage, which has helped the detection of this case. Although it does not constitute a meritorious act according to the law, it is frank and has penitence and can be punished lightly." (For details, see the original judgment on page 67). In this regard, whether the appellant constitutes meritorious service should be based on the extent of the appellant's positive role in this case. The appellant's explanation of the relevant accounts, especially the two "U disks" during the investigation stage and even the trial stage of the case, is decisive in determining the facts of the case and should be recognized as a meritorious act in accordance with the law. , And punish the appellant with lighter punishment in accordance with the law. The original trial decision was just to make the appellant's "confessions" wrong, and it was obviously unfair to the appellant.

In summary, the appellant believes that the original judgment found that the appellant invested RMB 700,000 in 2003 to participate in the smuggling activities of Lu Chengpin and others, making a profit of RMB 700,000, and later turned the RMB 700,000 into an investment in 2004; The appellant is responsible for managing the funds of Lu Chengpin and Lu Chengdian's smuggling gangs; Lu Chengpin invested on behalf of the appellant, Lu Chengdian and others to carry out cigarette smuggling activities in Huiyang waters with Lin Jinzhou, Cai Xiangmeng and others, and determined the appeal on the basis of two USB flash drives without physical support. People participated in the smuggling activities of Lu Chengpin and Lu Chengdian smuggling gangs, evaded the tax amount of 1,188,901,107.70 yuan, and determined that the appellant was the principal offender and negated the appellant's meritorious performance, which were deemed to be facts and judgments, and the appellant was sentenced to 15 years in prison and punished The gold of RMB 1,188,901,107.70 is obviously a heavy sentence (including the main sentence and additional penalty). Based on the above facts and reasons, the appellant lodged an appeal, requesting the Guangdong Higher People's Court to re-confirm the facts of the case, and instead found the appellant to be an accomplice in the case and constitute meritorious services. From the standpoint of the appellant, the appellant is the sole source of life for the entire family. His wife Qiu Yinglan is unemployed and two young children (one is 6 years old and one is 2 years old) still need to be raised. The parents of both husband and wife are over 60 years old. In fact, the 80-year-old is over, and he is in poor health, needs long-term medical treatment, the appellant still needs to do his duty of maintenance, etc., and the appellant will be lightly punished according to law and circumstances.

Sincerely,

Guangdong Higher People's Court