The first defendant is not a principal

December 8, 2006, Hangzhou Xiaoshan District People's Procuratorate to the seizure Xiao Xing Su [2006] No. 1193 indictment to the Xiaoshan District People's Court, the defendant accused of Shen Yi-cheng, a certain SHEN, Wang Moumou, Feng Moumou, Ni Moumou, Guo Moumou, a certain SHEN, Luo Moumou eight guilty of incitement to violence to resist the implementation of laws. December 22, 2006, Hangzhou Xiaoshan district court cases on an open trial, five of the accused were hired defense lawyer. Despite the cooler weather, but can accommodate several hundred people filled the public gallery to observe the proceedings, is said to have government officials also attended as observers. Five of the defendants in the trial the defense counsel of his own party (defendant) made a defense of not guilty. The first defendant as a Sheng-cheng defender of justice, the lawyers explained Jin Xiaoguang, Shen Cheng-yi does not constitute a crime to defend their views. From the trial court on December 22 at 8:30 in the morning until 18 o'clock before more recess, the court trial, the prosecution and defense had a heated debate. 8:00 that evening, the resumption of court proceedings, the sentence immediately, Shen Yi-cheng from the first defendant to the location of the second defendant, the prosecutor changed the fact that some of the allegations, and that Shen Cheng-yi is not a principal, the Department suspended the release of more than 10 o'clock that night to go home . Other defendants were sentenced to prison, a certain SHEN three years and six months; Wang Moumou three years; Ping Moumou 2002; Ni Moumou 2002, suspended for three years; Guo Moumou year, 2002 Postponed; A certain SHEN year, suspended for two years; Luo Moumou year. Jin Xiaoguang The following is a summary of the defense lawyers: Defense The chief justice, the judge: Shen Yi-cheng of the accused by the commission and the Beijing Jing Ding Law Firm of the assignment, I was the defendant's counsel Shen Yi-cheng, in accordance with the law involved in the case of litigation, the defense is made as follows First, prosecutors indicted and not entirely consistent with the fact. 1, Shen Cheng-yi is to allow Catholics to help Hill robbing founding the church, not to incite the masses to resist the violence of the Government and law enforcement staff. 2, the church was to stop for seven days, Shen Cheng-yi is to do a certain job, he is leading the government's invitation to dissuade the party faithful of the Church Hill to stop, prosecutors said that the anti-Shen Cheng-yi is to allow for seven days in order to stop the negotiations and the government, This is not true. 3, Shen Yi-cheng is in custody on the 28th, 29 government departments in the afternoon forced the removal of illegal scramble to build the church when the incident took place not mean that the Shen-yi as incitement. Second, the public prosecutor for justice Shen into the allegations of lack of evidence The public prosecutor is no clear evidence to prove Shen Yi-cheng to incite others to violence, the evidence of his statements so that followers to "help" and notes to help in the meaning of the scramble is to help build churches, such as back-up to do. Some evidence was mentioned in the intersection to let followers staged a sit-in in order to prevent government workers, staged a sit-in, but does not belong to the scope of violence. Third, incitement to violence to resist the implementation of laws of the crime demands Incitement to violence to resist law enforcement constitute a criminal offense of incitement to violence on the request must be written or oral form of incitement, violence must be the content, the content must be clear or acceptable to incite the masses to understand the material that is violent. Prosecutors in court debate on the second round of the debate that the defendant requested the help of many people to scramble to build, and the illegal construction is to be removed, so the accused can be aware of the possible anti-violence law legal consequences. In this connection the prosecution of the accused to allow Catholics to help infer is a violent content. Such an interpretation is inconsistent and incitement to violence to resist law enforcement demands constitute the crime of crimes, the crimes must be clear to incite the masses to violent means to resist the implementation of the law. Four on the case, I have to say a few words. Christians occurred scramble to build strong reason to build the church complex, the case should be dealt with in accordance with contradictions among the people, the accused should not be held criminally responsible. 1, occurred in construction, demolition of the church, on the one hand, because of religious people do not understand the law, the law scramble to build strong reasons for the building, mistakenly believe that as long as they built a done deal, the Government will acquiesce, there are examples in other places, so Scramble to build. On the other hand there are the party of individual government departments and the Town leadership doing its job well, mistakes in the work of dereliction of duty. 2, Church Town, the party is left over from history, the church before the party was occupied by Hill Hospital, despite the subsequent implementation of the policy, signed an agreement vacate, and so on, but the church over the years the issue has not been completely resolved properly, it can not explain our Done a very good job. 3, Party Town, thousands of Christian people, they do not have religious activities in public places, we are concerned why the land is not planning to carry out proper planning? 4, prosecutors said the debate on the government to do a lot of work to dissuade the Government has not at fault. Yes, indeed made a lot of useful advice, such as work flow, but does not mean that this incident took place before the party's Town, not the fault of individual government departments, a lack of responsibility. Party with followers of the case is Town of government departments contradictions among the people because the complexity and, as the prosecutor said, the impact on a wide range, have been affected by a number of foreign countries. Therefore, we should be more patient and meticulous work, the contradictions among the people of the proper approach to be addressed, not simply adjust the applicable criminal law, the court considered the state so as not to give the government an adverse impact on the hostility to our country Foreign organizations or countries under the pretext. Overview, the prosecutor accused the defendant guilty of Shen-yi as incitement to violence to resist the implementation of laws of the lack of evidence, cited no clear evidence to prove Shen-yi as incitement to anti-violence law, the defendant accused the other of lack of evidence, the charges can not be established. Requested the court to consider the above views.