Is it possible to retry the arson case of Hangzhou nanny?

It is very difficult to retry the arson case of Hangzhou nanny.

From June of 20021year, Lin Shengbin suddenly became popular again, but compared with the support and sympathy he received a few years ago, Lin Shengbin became popular this time, more because the netizens questioned the problems existing in the arson case of Nanny Hang.

Many netizens have turned into Sherlock Holmes to find doubts and loopholes, and judging from the doubts listed by some netizens, it seems reasonable and logical.

But if there is no evidence to support it, it is only a question after all and cannot be used as evidence by law. Although many netizens support the retrial of the case at present, it is estimated that it is very difficult to overturn the case without convincing new evidence.

The second instance ruling of Hangzhou nanny arson case

On the afternoon of June 4th, 20 18, the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province made a second-instance ruling on the case of arson and theft of the defendant Mo Huanjing: the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld; Mo Huanjing's death sentence was submitted to the Supreme People's Court for approval according to law.

The Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province held that Mo Huanjing deliberately set fire to a high-rise residential building, causing four deaths and heavy property losses, and his behavior constituted arson. During his work as a live-in nanny, he stole the property of his employer many times, and the amount was huge, which constituted theft. If one of them commits two crimes, he shall be punished for several crimes according to law.

Mo Huanjing has surrendered to his theft and can be given a lighter punishment according to law. Mo Huanjing chose to set fire to a high-rise residential building in the early hours of the morning, resulting in four deaths and huge property losses. Although the crime of arson has discretionary mitigating circumstances, the criminal motive is despicable, subjective and vicious, and personal danger is great, resulting in extremely serious criminal consequences and seriously endangering the public and social security, which is not enough to be given a lighter punishment.

Mo Huanjing and his defenders have insufficient reasons to demand a lighter punishment and will not be adopted. The opinion that the procurator in court of Zhejiang Provincial People's Procuratorate suggested rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment was established and adopted. The original conviction and applicable law are correct, and the sentence is appropriate. The trial procedure is legal. Therefore, the aforementioned ruling was made.