How to write the defense of blackmail by blocking the door?

Dear presiding judge and judge, our firm accepted the entrustment of the defendant Wang's family and appointed me as Wang's defender to participate in this lawsuit and appear in court to defend Wang's alleged extortion case. Before the trial of this case, the defender met with the defendant many times, made a detailed reading and serious investigation, so that he had a clear and accurate understanding of the facts of this case. Combined with today's trial situation, the following defense opinions are put forward from both factual and legal aspects: First, the core fact that whether Wang constitutes the crime of extortion in this case lies in whether the victim is pressured by the defendant to deliver property and whether there is a causal relationship between the two. It is inevitable that the victim broke into his house, frightened his wife and talked to him about the theory. His words and emotions will inevitably get too excited. It is also human nature not to clarify the problem and not to let the victims leave. The young and energetic Wang was indifferent to the victim's beating. Combined with the facts of this case, first of all, the victim did not directly deliver the property, but the middleman contacted his boss and agreed to give Wang Yi 10000 yuan to solve the matter; Secondly, when solving the contradiction with the victim, some people mediate, and the main role of giving money to the victim's boss is these people. If they commit a crime with the king, do these people commit a crime? Without finding that the core elements of the crime of extortion are inaccurate, it is difficult to establish the indictment accusing Wang of constituting the crime of extortion. Second, Wang subjectively does not have the subjective intention and objective elements of extortion. In this case, Wang did not commit a crime in advance. Although he called Wang in advance, the purpose of calling Wang was to seek Wang's help in resolving disputes through property negotiation, rather than letting Wang teach maintenance workers or ask for money. On the same day, Wang Zhenghao played cards in the car wash shop opposite the property office, and went to the property office out of affection and loyalty. The purpose of calling Wang is not to extort money from the victim. The whole process is Wang's. Besides, Wang never asked the victim for money from beginning to end. Although he finally got 1 1,000 yuan, Wang did not expect the money, nor did he see this 1 1,000 yuan. He doesn't know about it. In fact, he didn't get a penny, because his purpose was not extortion, but to help solve the contradiction with the victim. Although he hit the victim, it was Wang's youthful use of the wrong method, but he could not. Wang didn't know the victim, and he had a short contact time with the victim, so he didn't fully participate in the mediation between people. He doesn't know the details of the mediation process. Wang Yizhi said that the accident was none of my business. He left the property before the mediation and never asked for a penny afterwards. Therefore, Wang does not have the subjective intention of extortion. Thirdly, Wang struck the victim objectively, but the purpose was not to extort money, and his subjective and objective behavior did not conform to the basic principles of criminal law conviction. In this case, Wang hit the victim with certain contingency and suddenness, and the victim ignored Wang's criticism. Wang beat the victim out of loyalty, but the purpose was not to extort money or hurt his body, so Wang's objective behavior did not conform to his subjective behavior, and his behavior did not conform to the provisions of the criminal law. Four. In this case, there was no intention of extortion with Wang before or after, and there was no extortion behavior and purpose with the accomplice, so the accomplice was not established. In this case, Wang just learned that his brother's house was broken into by a property repairman on the afternoon of July 29th. Before Wang went to the property management office, he did not instruct or instruct Wang to hit two victims, nor did he stop Wang. Wang's excessive behavior was not true meaning and purpose. And after they met, they didn't tell them that they were going to ask the two victims for money, or asked Wang to help them ask for money. In order to protect their rights and interests, they called the police to solve the matter, and the police told them to solve it themselves and seek the victim's apology. There were others as mediators at that time. In order to protect civil rights, it is proper to solve civil disputes by means of monetary compensation, which is neither against the law nor against the victims themselves and their bosses. Wang didn't know the fact that he wanted money from beginning to end. Wang didn't know that he had taken the victim's money 1000 yuan until he was investigated by the public security organ. Therefore, there is no purpose or behavior of collusion between Wang and the victim in advance and in the case. According to the theory of * * * accomplice crime, the establishment of * * * accomplice crime requires all * * criminals to have the same intentional content. In this case, Wang is required to have the subjective purpose of extortion. Combined with the above lawyer's opinion, this case is lacking in this respect and the evidence is insufficient. So there is no evidence to prove that the subjective intention of * * * is consistent. To sum up, in this case, the purpose of extortion was not achieved beforehand or afterwards, and there was no act and purpose of extortion with the accomplice, so * * * was not established as an accomplice. V. Sentencing defense: Wang has the legal conditions to be exempted from criminal punishment. According to Article 5 of the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of extortion, if the amount of extortion is relatively large, the perpetrator pleads guilty, repents, returns the stolen money or restitution, has the circumstances of legal lenient punishment or does not participate in the distribution of stolen money and goods, it can be considered as a minor crime and exempted from criminal punishment. Combined with the facts of this case, Wang pleaded guilty in court, and his attitude was good. I hope that the collegial panel can pay full attention to the above defense opinions! Defender: Citizens should defend their rights in time after being accused of extortion for blocking the door. It is the best and most convenient way to ask a lawyer to defend themselves. If citizens do not have enough legal quality and knowledge, it is easy to fall into a situation where they cannot help themselves. The lawyer's defense will give the client the best result to the greatest extent.