Please give me some criminal cases.

From June 2005 to March 2006, the defendant Liu Guangquan used social counterfeiters to forge military vehicle driving licenses and other documents, bought three forged military vehicle number plates, disguised social vehicles as military vehicles, and engaged in private transportation business to avoid paying road and bridge fees. After the incident, Liu Guangquan went to the public security organ and truthfully confessed the above-mentioned criminal facts. In the trial after the case was prosecuted by the public prosecution agency, the defendant Liu Guangquan and his defenders argued that he had committed a criminal act and only violated a provision of the criminal law in order to achieve the criminal purpose, so this case should be convicted of the crime of illegally buying and selling military symbols.

Referee

The People's Court of Cixi City, Zhejiang Province held through trial that the defendant Liu Guangquan instructed social counterfeiters to forge military documents by providing information and other methods, and his behavior constituted the crime of forging military documents. Defendant Liu Guangquan also illegally bought and sold military number plates and other special signs, and the circumstances were serious, which constituted the crime of illegally buying and selling military symbols. Because Liu Guangquan's actions violated different criminal targets, there is no connection between them, and they should be convicted and punished separately according to law. Therefore, the relevant defense opinions of Liu Guangquan and his defenders are not in compliance with the law and will not be adopted. Guang Liu surrendered himself, and can be given a lighter punishment according to law. Liu Guangquan committed several crimes and was punished according to law. According to Liu Guangquan's criminal circumstances and repentance, probation can be applied according to law.

To sum up, according to Articles 375 (1) and 2), 67 (1), 69 (2), 72 (2) and 73 (3) of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Production and Sale of Armed Forces Vehicle Number Plates, Articles 1 (2) and 2 (1) (1), He was sentenced to one year and six months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, and fined 50,000 yuan.

After the verdict was pronounced, the defendant Liu Guangquan did not appeal, and the verdict has come into effect.

Comment and analysis

The so-called implicated offense refers to the situation that the method or result of the crime infringes on other crimes for the purpose of committing crimes. Implicated crime has three characteristics: first, it has carried out several acts; Second, there is an implicated relationship between several behaviors; Third, several acts violated different charges. In the above characteristics, how to correctly identify the implicated relationship between several acts is the key to distinguish one crime from several crimes. Generally speaking, the relationship between several behaviors is manifested as the relationship between the purpose behavior and the means behavior, and the relationship between the cause behavior and the result behavior. However, whether there is an implicated relationship between the two can not be determined only by the subjective understanding of the actor.

In this case, the defendant, Liu Guangquan, confessed that the reason why he asked social counterfeiters to forge armed forces vehicle driving licenses, vehicle driving licenses and other documents and buy forged armed forces vehicle number plates was only one purpose, that is, to avoid paying road and bridge tolls. On the surface, the two methods and actions adopted by the defendant Liu Guangquan are all for the same criminal purpose, and both have the relationship between means and purpose. In fact, we should type the relationship between purpose and means, cause and result, and then examine whether there is an implicated relationship between them, that is, implicated offense should be identified only when a certain means is usually used to commit a crime, or when a certain cause behavior usually leads to a certain result behavior. For example, forging military official documents, certificates and seals, pretending to be soldiers and swindling, can be identified as implicated offenders. However, whoever pretends to be a soldier and commits fraud after stealing a military vehicle should not be regarded as an implicated offender. Because forging military official documents, certificates and seals is a common means of posing as soldiers, stealing military vehicles is not a common means of swindling. By the same token, buying and using forged armed forces vehicle number plates is a common way to avoid paying road and bridge tolls (whether road and bridge toll stations charge passing vehicles, only check the vehicle number plates, not the vehicle driving license, etc.). Forging military driving licenses and vehicle driving licenses is not a common means to avoid paying road and bridge tolls. In this case, why did the defendant Liu Guangquan go to great lengths to forge the army's driver's license and vehicle driving license? There are two possibilities: first, it has another purpose; Second, it is wrong in fact, that is, it is mistaken that vehicle driving license, vehicle driving license and other documents are needed to avoid paying road and bridge tolls. If it is the first case, it is natural to convict and punish the act; In the second case, if there is a factual misunderstanding, it will not affect the conviction and punishment of the act. Because, in fact, misunderstanding just shows that there is no relationship between means behavior and purpose behavior.

On the question of whether a violation of a specific provision is one crime or several crimes, the key depends on whether the specific provision stipulates one crime or several crimes. If a specific clause only stipulates one crime, then it is certainly a crime to violate a specific clause. But this is not the case in the specific provisions of China's criminal law. Some articles in the specific provisions of the criminal law stipulate several crimes. Take Article 375 of the Criminal Law as an example. Compared with the charges stipulated in the second paragraph, the charges stipulated in the first paragraph of this article are not optional crimes and cannot be applied together, but two different crime constitutions. The differences are as follows: First, the targets of crimes are different. That is, there are official documents, seals and certificates of the army, and special signs such as military uniforms and license plates. Secondly, the subject of crime is different. That is, only natural persons can be natural persons or units. Third, the forms of crime are different. That is, the difference between behavioral crime and plot crime. Therefore, when several acts committed by the actor have the constitutive requirements stipulated in the first and second paragraphs of this article respectively, it is generally appropriate to identify two crimes.

To sum up, the defendant Liu Guangquan's behavior not only constitutes the crime of forging military documents, but also constitutes the crime of illegally buying and selling military symbols, and should be punished for several crimes.

The facts of a legal case

On June 5438+February 65438+February 9, 2004, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, Zhang Jiafu, a salesman of Texley Property Consulting Co., Ltd. (the deceased in this case) and others met Hou Hao, a salesman of Chuanzhu Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., who also distributed sales leaflets here. After the fight, the quarrel between the two sides subsided. After that, the two sides scratched again. In the roadway, Zhang Jiafu violently pushed Hou Hao, and Hou Hao immediately took out his stainless steel knife and stabbed Zhang Jiafu in the left chest. Zhang Jiafu died on the way to the hospital because of his injuries.

On July 28th, 2005, Dazhou Labor and Social Security Bureau recognized Zhang Jiafu as a work-related injury. Texley Property Consulting Co., Ltd. refused to accept the decision and applied to Dazhou Municipal People's Government for administrative reconsideration. In the same year, 65438+February, 2005, 65438+May, the administrative reconsideration decision of Master Fujue Zi (2005) No.23 upheld the work-related injury identification No.547 made by the bureau. Texley Property Consulting Co., Ltd. immediately filed an administrative lawsuit with the court.

Referee

The Intermediate People's Court of Dazhou City, Sichuan Province held that:

1. Zhang Jiafu fights with others and has nothing to do with performing his duties.

After Zhang Jiafu died, his father Zhang Dingfu applied for work-related injury identification. Dazhou Labor and Social Security Bureau, according to the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, determined that the law enforcement subject and procedure of work-related injury were legal, and the fact that the third person's son was injured was clear and the evidence was sufficient. However, there is not enough evidence to prove that his injury is related to the performance of his duties. The reason is that Zhang Jiafu and others had a dispute with Hou Hao. According to the court statement, the intention is to occupy more shares in the real estate market for their company. But this move is not his job responsibility. Zhang Jiafu's duty is clear: he is assigned by the company to distribute leaflets for the company to sell houses, rather than interfering or using violence to prevent others from distributing leaflets for selling houses. His behavior was beyond his duty, so his death had nothing to do with his duty.

Two, the people's court has the right to make a judgment on Zhang Jiafu's behavior according to law.

According to the facts identified in Criminal Adjoining Civil Judgment No.25 of Law (2005), Zhang Jiafu first pushed others to bully the weak in the fight with Hou Hao. Because Zhang Jiafu died in the fight, the public security organs did not punish him for fighting. Although the public security organs have not yet characterized Zhang Jiafu's fighting with others, the people's court has the right to judge whether Zhang Jiafu's fighting with others is illegal in the proceedings. According to Item (4) of Article 19 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, Zhang Jiafu's behavior is a violation of public security management.

Item (1) of Article 16 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance stipulates: "If an employee has any of the following circumstances, it shall not be deemed as a work-related injury or regarded as a work-related injury: (1) Casualties caused by crime or violation of public security administration". Therefore, Dazhou Labor and Social Security Bureau (2005) No.547 identified Zhang Jiafu as a work-related injury, which has serious errors in the application of laws and regulations and should be corrected according to law. Therefore, the specific administrative act of revoking the work-related injury identification made by the Municipal Labor and Social Security Bureau should be re-made after the judgment takes effect.