Defense

The chief justice, the judge: Chen accused the subject commissioned by the Beijing Municipality and Beijing law firm tripod of the assignment, I was the subject of the second trial the appellant Chen counsel, in accordance with the law to participate in the activities of the proceedings. Before, I met with Chen S, read the court file, the defense is made as follows: I, on the first public prosecutor and accused the court of first instance verdict Court of First Instance finds that the facts clear (A) that the first trial, "Chen, Chen S, Liu" illegal possession for the purpose of the stones flapping ... ... used school bus, school bus tires release of the gas threat, and so on ... ... means to force the school to obtain a certain school bus Operators of the property. This finds no basis in fact, far from the truth. Chen did not use standard rock beat school bus, school bus tires did not release the gas, there is no threat to the school bus no longer enter the three hills. The fact is that Chen Chen's younger brother received a standard phone, he informed the school bus was hit by him in the past, Chen put down the standard of living to the scene. To the scene after seeing his brother Chen Chen S will not cause illness, suggested that even if the driver out of the apology, which reflects a general tolerance and kind-hearted farmers, but the school said the driver "killed deserve!" The attitude of the driver angered the villagers at the scene, that is the case, Chen S did not release the gas school bus tires, there is no threat to the school bus, but with dialogue and consultations to deal with disputes. Chen beat marked the first trial that school bus, school bus tires release of gas, such as a threat to the school, there is no evidence. (B) whether the school should be compensated? Court of First Instance held that Chen had no personal and property damage, the school authorities to ask for compensation no legal, this view is completely wrong. From the school bus passing through Chen's on the right side, ran into Chen's hand, was the scene to deal with Chen also admitted that the police "to see a motorcycle with a school bus occurred in a minor collision, motorcycle School bus on the left fender to the body surface to erase the traces of mud. " Even so, that is not a collision, as a school bus from the motor vehicle is so close to the motorcycle both physical and psychological posed a threat. In this case, the school bus should also be compensated. (C) 3500 yuan of compensation is involved in the traffic police under the coordination reached between the two sides should not be recognized as extortion. The school bus operator contract Zhao asked the Public Security Bureau in a statement on the transcript, "I asked him how to look for traffic police to do? After the traffic police on motorcycles to find words to master, and then again from the traffic police said the owner agreed to close even if the 3500 yuan." (See the public security organs of Zhao asked about the notes on page 3, Vol 26 No. 2 line and 7 lines). This is 3500 yuan in compensation to participate in the work of traffic police, the two sides reached consensus agreement. Therefore, the Court of First Instance found Chen guilty of marked blackmail crime is completely wrong. Second, with regard to the second accused prosecutors and the courts of first instance verdict (A) Court of First Instance found Chen guilty of extortion standard, which can not be identified to set up. Chen specimens did not, nor did I instruct other villagers gathered in a long time inside and outside the depot up trouble by criticizing oil, the impact of the Office of the oil, mining threat to the burning vehicle, parked in the release oil within the tire air, water mains plug Oil depot at the entrance, and so on. Court of First Instance found that Chen participated in the above standard, there is no evidence to prove that. The witness identified a result, Chen marked only part of the compensation involved in the negotiations, there is no threat to the implementation of the way, and Chen Zhi marked in the middle of negotiations to leave the scene to help business gathered at the depot for a long time did not, Chen S, and so when the two sides have agreed to return 50,000 yuan Compensation. Chen is the fact that the specific standard after receiving "certain Arab-Israeli" telephone, but did not immediately Chen S, "an Arab" continue to press the phone and tell Chen S, oil depots in the destruction of land to build digging of fish ponds, asked Chen to stop. Chen went to the standard, and leave in the middle of the busy business to his association with others, not in the middle of what happened, he was not very informed, and see files relevant materials. (B) how to look at the oil depot and villagers claim a collective behavior Land Law prohibits the change of land use. Unauthorized use of oil excavator digging of fish ponds are built to change the land use, land law, and so is a violation of the law. Based on the simple villagers awareness of the law, that destroyed the depot land, in violation of the law, which they rush to stop and report to the police, the police request to stop the land in violation of the law. Liu gang up land to the oil law on the legal staff (see case materials) is clear evidence of this. But also in the minds of the villagers, although the national expropriation of land, but not used, according to the Land Law stipulates that the land had also return to the village. Because they consider themselves justice, they can not report to the police, only release oil in the steam automobile tires before they threatened to burn an excavator. Because the oil tanks damaged land, oil depots are willing to negotiate compensation, only to allow the villagers to send representatives to negotiate and can not be identified as extortion. (C) Who is the land compensation claims were Court of First Instance found that "even if the oil depot operators to use the law 'red plum' land, in accordance with the law should be dealt with by the original land owner Village villagers come forward to claim the rights group." (See the first trial p. 43) This view is entirely wrong In our country, on behalf of the rural collective economic organizations of the village committee is not group of villagers, the Court of First Instance deliberately confuse the concept is clearly the wrong decision. In addition, in the village are not in favor of the rights of the villagers why not take the initiative to claim rights? (D) to obtain the compensation deal with the problem Court of First Instance that "... the accused ... and others should be obtained from the destruction of the land on the ground The amount of compensation to the three hills returned to the village committee for the restoration of damaged land, rather than dividing and unauthorized disposal and the 'red plum' destruction of land not directly related to the matter. " First of all, the Court of First Instance before and after the conflict, said that in front of the right to be villagers Village group, said the money should be back to the three hills of the village committee. Second, the village in order to protect the land, not to undermine the protection of land-use change and that they took time to delay the normal work of the farm work and, at 200 yuan per person as the loss of working time and reasonable cost. Although the amount of the remaining villagers to be handed over to the village of Reclamation, Yang-Wo Village 5 in the village of kindergarten and the village of Yi Xi, Yang-Wo Village 4 Village as the cost of dragon boat, looks nothing to do with the land, but the cost of all kindergartens and dragon boat Three belong to the village, the villagers in the eye, do not have their own money, to the village that is legal and reasonable. We can not be dogmatic and mechanical requirements of the villagers left, as required by law, they have no knowledge of such a high level. The villagers claim that it is blackmail, whether from me or from the criminal law theory The actual status of the country, are not right, is untenable. Court of First Instance's decision is completely wrong, twist the law is a referee. (E) of the Court of First Instance that the defendant's conduct not only violated the victim's property, were also seriously disrupted the production and operation of public places and places of the order. That this is wrong and illegal acts of oil, the destruction of land, changes in land use, villagers put an end to violations and claims, how can it be disrupted production and management in public places and places of order? Overview, the Court of First Instance found Chen guilty of marked blackmail crime can not be set up, referees are wrong and should be corrected. Please be taken into account the above views