Upon investigation, it was found that at around 14:00 on March 12, 2014, defendants Zhang and Li went to the Nanshan Base Yard of a construction company in Sunshine Lijing, in a certain city, and without cause, used shovels and iron pipes to assault Hu and Jiang. This resulted in Hu suffering a fracture to the lower wall of his left eye socket, which was assessed by a forensic doctor as a secondary minor injury. Jiang sustained injuries to his left upper limb and left lower limb, with bruises covering an area of more than 15 square centimeters, assessed as a minor injury by forensic examination. After the incident, defendant Li voluntarily reported to the public security authorities on July 18, 2014. These facts were not disputed by defendants Zhang and Li during the court hearing. Furthermore, the accounts of the victims Hu and Jiang, the testimonies of witnesses Wang and Shi, identification records, forensic opinions, documentary evidence, and other evidence confirm these facts, maki


Upon investigation, it was determined that from the end of 2012 to August 26, 2013, the defendant Chen hired the defendant Huang and Wang (handled in a separate case) to counterfeit vernier calipers produced by his own company, Dingfeng Measuring Tools Co., Ltd., into "Shang Gong" and "Guang Lu" brand calipers at Sunshine Community, Building 42, Unit 3, Room 205, in a certain town of a certain city. On August 26, 2013, law enforcement officers from the city's Administration for Industry and Commerce seized 1,687 counterfeit vernier calipers that had not yet been sold at this processing site. On the same day, police from a town police station in the city arrested the defendant Huang at Sunshine Community, Building 42, Unit 3, Room 205, and captured the defendant Chen at Dingfeng Measuring Tools Co., Ltd. located in the same town. According to the appraisal, the seized counterfeit vernier calipers were valued at RMB 132,040. During the trial, the defendants Chen and Huang raised no objections to the aforementioned facts, which are corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses Gu and Wei, the trademark registration certificates, product appraisal report, price appraisal report, identification records, search records, list of seized items, on-site records and photographs, as well as the defendants' household registration certificates and arrest reports, all of which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of Jiaojiang District in a certain city charges: From December 2015 to February 20, 2016, defendants Yao and Hong, a married couple, provided a gambling venue for individuals engaging in gambling in the form of "Dian San Hu" at the game room next door to No. 35 Jiangcheng Alley, Haimen Street, Jiaojiang District, a certain city. They charged 20 RMB per person, or provided coins as gambling tools for those gambling in the open space at their door, charging 20 RMB each time, with total profits amounting to 8,000 RMB. On February 20, 2016, gamblers Zheng, Zhou, Ni, and others were caught gambling at the entrance of the game room by police, who confiscated over 30,000 RMB in gambling funds and seized 65 one-yuan coins used as gambling tools within the aforementioned game room. On February 20, 2016, defendants Yao and Hong were summoned according to the law to appear in the case. They returned the illegal gains of 8,000 RMB after appearing in the case. These facts were not contested by defendants Yao and Hong during the court proceedings. The testimonies of witnesses Zheng, Ni, Zhou, Wang Jia, Wang Yi, Wang Bing, Zhao, Zhang, and others, along with the search record, seizure decision, on-site photos, identification records, household registration proof, details of the capture, the criminal judgment on Yao for harboring and shielding crime, and the confiscation list and other evidence, are sufficient for the determination.


After trial and verification, it was found that at around 19:00 on October 24, 2011, because Wu had a dispute with Li Bing (handled in a separate case) and was injured by him at No. 16 Zhanjiali, Mahu Village, Xixing Subdistrict in this district, the defendants Nie and Zhang arrived at the scene and, holding air conditioner racks and other objects, chased and beat Li Bing, causing him injuries. According to an assessment, the victim Li Bing sustained a cumulative scalp scar length of over 6 cm, a fracture of the right temporal bone, an orbital wall fracture, and a zygomatic arch fracture, with his injuries classified as minor injuries. After the incident, the defendants Nie and Zhang each compensated the victim Li Bing for economic losses amounting to 4,000 RMB and received his understanding. The above facts were not contested by the defendants Nie and Zhang during the court hearing, and there are statements from the victim Li Bing; testimonies from witnesses Wu, Gao, Li Jia, Li Yi, Ding, Su, and Liu; the forensic medical assessment of the degree of bodily injury; photos of the crime tools; medical records; understanding statements and receipts; statements of circumstances; the process of the arrest; household registration certificates of the defendants Nie and Zhang; and their confessions at the public security organs and in court, all of which provide sufficient evidence to confirm the findings.


The prosecution alleges that in the early morning of August 11, 2012, after a verbal altercation and scuffle between the victim Chen Moujia, Yang Mou, Mo Mou, Huang Mou, and Chen Mouyi with Qian, they were led by Feng to the back entrance of the Guanhao City Club to be beaten by the defendant Jiang, along with suspects Ding and Jiang Mouyi, resulting in Chen Moujia being seriously injured and having level nine disability. Defendant Qian has no major objections to the facts of the accusation but claims that he was unarmed and did not physically assault the victim Chen Moujia. His defense counsel presented the following arguments: 1. Defendant Qian was unarmed and did not directly assault Chen Moujia, playing a minor role and thus should be considered an accessory; 2. Qian surrendered voluntarily and confessed truthfully after the incident, which constitutes voluntary surrender; 3. There were reasons for the incident, and victim Chen Moujia was partially at fault. Therefore, they request a mitigated and lenient punishment for Qian. Defendant Jiang has no major objections to the facts of the accusation, claiming that he was merely fulfilling his duties as a security guard and trying to stop the fight between Chen Moujia and the others, not beating anyone with weapons or directly assaulting victim Chen Moujia. The trial established that in the early morning of August 11, 2012, the five victims, Chen Moujia, Yang Mou, Mo Mou, Huang Mou, and Chen Mouyi, were drinking at the Guanhao City Club in Baocheng District 31, Bao’an District, when they acted inappropriately towards a female bar employee, leading to a verbal altercation with the employee’s boyfriend, defendant Qian, which escalated into a fight. Qian then instructed waiter Fan to inform the bar security. Upon receiving the message, bar manager Feng (handled in a separate case) brought defendant Jiang, suspects Ding and Jiang Mouyi, and several security guards (detail


After trial, it was found that at around 3:00 PM on April 28, 2014, the defendant Zhang sold a small bag of methamphetamine to drug user Ji for 130 yuan next to the wild goose sculpture in the square outside the train station in a district of Ziyang City, a province. Later, the police arrested Zhang next to the wild goose sculpture in the square outside the train station, and subsequently arrested Ji near the intersection at the train station, and found a package of suspected methamphetamine white crystal-like substance on Ji. The suspected methamphetamine weighed 0.15 grams. After Zhang was arrested, he assisted the police in contacting the defendant Huang to purchase drugs from him. Huang purchased a package of methamphetamine from the defendant Lan. Subsequently, under police surveillance, Zhang conducted a transaction with Huang inside the Ziyan Internet Cafe on Yancheng Road in a district, where Huang sold the methamphetamine he purchased from Lan to Zhang for 200 yuan and was arrested. The 200 yuan methamphetamine weighed 0.72 grams. The police found on Huang a package of suspected methamphetamine white crystal-like substance, a package of suspected heroin white powder-like substance, cash, and a mobile phone. The suspected methamphetamine weighed 0.57 grams, and the suspected heroin weighed 0.06 grams. Later, Huang assisted the police in arresting Lan inside the Ziyan Internet Cafe on Yancheng Road in a district. According to the identification by the evidence identification room of the Ziyang City Public Security Bureau, methamphetamine was detected in the above suspected methamphetamine substance, and heroin was detected in the suspected heroin white powder-like substance. The facts of the above charges were undisputed by the defendants Lan, Huang, and Zhang during the trial, and are confirmed by physical evidence, documentary evidence, weighing records, witness testimony, on-site inspection records, identification records, and expert opinions, which are sufficient to ascertain the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain city charges that on the afternoon of March 19, 2015, the defendants Ren and Long, after prior discussion, entered the home of Yu at No. 87, New Li, Huatian Village, Economic Development Zone of a certain city by climbing over the wall. They stole two platinum diamond rings, one gold ring, two pieces of jade, as well as Zhonghua cigarettes, a watch, and other items, with a total value of 12,764.8 yuan. After the incident, one platinum diamond ring, two pieces of jade, and other items were recovered and returned to the victim. Defendants Ren and Long compensated the victim for a total amount of 7,500 yuan. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Ren and Long during the court proceedings and were corroborated by the victim Yu's statement, testimony from the witness Ye, identification records, on-site inspection records, seizure list, return list, jewelry sales receipts, assistance project price appraisal report, the public security administrative punishment decision, the arrest process, and household registration certificates, etc., which are sufficient to confirm the charges.


After trial, it was found that at approximately 2:40 a.m. on October 22, 2014, defendants Ma and Qu, while under the influence of alcohol, caused a disturbance and unjustifiably obstructed police officers on duty at the intersection of Liuquan North Road and Central Street in Huantai County. Defendants Ma and Qu insulted, pulled, and kicked Police Officer Qu and Auxiliary Police Officer Wei, resulting in multiple injuries to Officer Qu's face, neck, and knees. According to an assessment, Officer Qu's injuries were classified as minor. During the court hearing, both defendants raised no objections to these facts, which are corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses Sun and Zhang, documentary evidence such as the criminal case registration form and household registration certificate, and the forensic medical assessment of the degree of human injury, all of which are sufficient to establish the facts.


After the trial, it was found that on the evening of June 19, 2013, the defendants Liu and Wang went to "Diamond World KTV" in Zhongxing Town, Siyang County, to sing with friends. While taking the elevator upstairs, defendant Liu accidentally stepped on the foot of the victim Ni Yi, leading to a conflict and argument between the two parties, which was later broken up by others. At around 11 PM that night, defendant Liu saw victim Ni Yi coming out of "Diamond World KTV" and waved for him to come over, after which Liu assaulted him. Subsequently, defendants Hai, Wang, and Li also unjustifiably punched and kicked victim Ni Yi. As a result, victim Ni Yi suffered a nasal bone fracture, a fracture of the medial wall of the right orbital, and a fracture of the frontal process of the right maxilla. An assessment determined that victim Ni Yi's injuries constituted minor injuries. After the incident, the relatives of defendants Liu, Hai, and Wang compensated the victim for economic losses amounting to 30,000 yuan, and they received forgiveness from victim Ni Yi. The above facts were not disputed by defendants Liu, Li, Wang, and Hai during the court proceedings and were corroborated by victim Ni Yi's statement, testimonies of witnesses He, Tang, Han, Yin, Ni Jia, Xu, Shen, Jiang, and others, as well as by evidence such as the identification record, mediation agreement, letter of forgiveness, forensic medical assessment of bodily injuries, administrative penalty decision, and household registratio


The prosecution charges: In the early hours of February 25, 2016, defendants Cheng and Zhang arrived at the bottom of Unit 3, Building 6, in a certain district of the city. Zhang acted as a lookout while Cheng used tools such as a file and a screwdriver to pick the lock and steal a Qingyi BMW model electric car belonging to the victim, Yang, which was parked there (valued at 16,405 yuan as appraised). On March 3, 2016, defendants Cheng and Zhang were apprehended by the public security authorities. After being brought to justice, defendants Cheng and Zhang truthfully confessed to the aforementioned facts of the case. The stolen electric car has been recovered by the public security authorities and returned to the victim. During the court trial, defendants Cheng and Zhang raised no objections to the aforementioned facts, which are supported by a report of the incident, a site map of the crime scene, a list of items seized and returned, records and photos of the defendants identifying the crime scene, identification records, a price appraisal, the statement of the victim Yang, a report on the case resolution by the public security authorities, the defendants' household registration information, administrative penalty decision documents, and other evidence sufficient to establish the case.


After the trial, it was found that: On the early morning of July 3, 2015, the defendants Li and Wu, after assisting patrol officers in their police duties and changing into civilian clothes, conspired to exploit the guise of law enforcement to investigate illegal activities for personal gain. They went to the entrance of the Shunxin Hotel on South Road, a certain city, where they discovered the victim, Xiao (female, Vietnamese), who was suspected of being a prostitute. Li and Wu claimed to be officers from the Public Security Bureau and stated that they would take Xiao into custody. They then took the victim Xiao to Huaguoshan Park in the city, where they intimidated and threatened her, forcibly extorting an Apple 5 phone and 1,100 yuan in cash from her. According to a city price appraisal center, the value of the phone was 1,410 yuan. It was also found that on July 7 and July 23, 2015, respectively, the defendants Li and Wu turned themselves in to the Lingcheng Police Station of a certain city’s Public Security Bureau, returning the extorted phone and 1,100 yuan in cash to the police, who then returned them to the victim Xiao. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Li and Wu during the trial, and were supported by an incident registration form, statements from the victim Xiao, records of on-site identification by defendants Li and Wu, mutual identification records and photos between the defendants and the victim Xiao, a list of seized items and returned items, a price appraisal report from the city’s price appraisal center (Beijian Gong (2015) No. 193), as well as explanations, household registration information, and other evidence, sufficient to establish the facts.


The prosecution charges that between October 2012 and November 8, 2012, at the "Dianwan Dongman" game arcade located at No. 28 Wangfujing Commercial Street, Lufa Mingcheng, a district in a certain city, the defendants Li, Guo, Jing, and Liu (to be tried in a separate case) operated with the intent of making a profit by placing 22 gambling-capable electronic gaming machines for people to gamble. Additionally, it was found that on January 22, 2013, defendant Jing voluntarily surrendered to the police. After being apprehended, defendants Li and Guo truthfully confessed to the criminal facts. The aforementioned facts were not contested by defendants Li, Guo, and Jing during the court proceedings, and were supported by physical evidence including photos of the gambling-capable gaming machines; documentary evidence such as the household registration certificates of the three defendants, inventory lists of seized items, fugitive registration forms, house rental contracts, renovation permits, renovation management service agreements, and renovation safety responsibility statements; testimonies from witnesses Sun, Liu, and Xu; arrest reports and case explanations provided by investigators; assessment opinions determining the gambling capability of the electronic gaming facilities and equipment; and identification and inspection records. This evidence is sufficient to establish the facts.


After trial, it was found that the defendants Li and Hu, together with Liu (handled in a separate case), used the pretexts of not having seen the land acquisition agreement and not having received compensation for land acquisition, without valid reasons. They employed methods such as blocking workers from construction, climbing in front of bulldozers to prevent construction machinery from entering the site, and other means. They repeatedly and without cause obstructed Jiafuxin Company's normal construction activities on January 7, 2015, January 8, 2015, and February 11, 2015. They also repeatedly pushed over the color steel tile fences built by Jiafuxin Company, causing significant losses to the company and severely affecting the work and life of Ren (Chairman of Jiafuxin Company) and the normal business operations of the company. According to the appraisal, the actions of Li and Hu caused direct losses of 1,575 yuan (due to the color steel tiles being pushed over) and indirect losses of 19,000 yuan (including excavator and work stoppage fees) to Jiafuxin Company. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the two defendants during the trial, and were corroborated by the statements of the victim, Xiangcheng Jafuxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.'s legal representative, Ren, the testimonies of witnesses such as Guo, appraisal opinions, on-site investigations, identification records, Xiangcheng Jiafuxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.'s business license and copy, tax registration, provisional qualification certificate for real estate development enterprises, land acquisition agreement and sketch, proof and power of attorney from Xiangcheng Land Reserve Development Center, statements and payment slips issued by Xiangcheng Huayuan Office, demolition notices, case filing approval forms from Xiangcheng Chengjiao Township Planning Management Office, delivery document photos, illegal construction photos, and video screenshots of the defendants obstructing construction, among other evidence, sufficient to confirm the findings.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain location charged: In September 2013, defendants Pan and Zhang rented a house by the roadside in a village in Xinchang County and decided to install a production line in the house to produce capsules. Subsequently, defendant Pan contacted and purchased equipment to set up and test the production line and, through online searches, contacted a gelatin manufacturer in a certain location to purchase 75 kilograms of industrial gelatin. In February 2014, production officially began, with defendant Pan responsible for dissolving the gelatin and Zhang responsible for overseeing the production line. They produced a total of 6.89 million capsules in red-yellow, blue-white, and all-green 0 sizes, which were stored at their home at 50 Huayuan Road, Ru’ao Town, Xinchang County. Pan later contacted several health product merchants multiple times, but the capsules were not sold. On March 6, 2014, defendants Pan and Zhang were apprehended by the police, who seized the aforementioned capsules, capsule shells, and gelatin. Tests showed that the chromium content in the capsules and gelatin exceeded the relevant standards. To prove the above facts, the prosecution provided witness testimonies, test reports, and relevant documentary evidence.


The prosecution charges: On the evening of January 14, 2013, the defendant Ran, due to a trivial matter, gathered the defendants Tian, Sun, Tan, and Zhou, and drove a van to the entrance of the New Congress KTV on Yangming Street in this city. There, they took the victim, Pan, into the van and drove near the Lianghui Reservoir and other places, using verbal threats to extort 3,000 RMB from the victim. As the victim did not have cash, the five defendants, including Ran, drove the victim back to the entrance of the New Congress KTV on Yangming Street in this city to get the money, where they were caught by the police on the spot. The above facts were not contested by the defendants Ran, Tian, Sun, Tan, and Zhou during the trial, and are substantiated by documentary evidence such as the "capture process" record, personal information, household registration proof, the witness testimony of Mao, the victim statement of Pan, and the identification record of the Yuyao Public Security Bureau, which are sufficient to establish the case.


Upon investigation, it was found that at approximately 14:00 on March 21, 2014, the defendants Zheng and Luo were driving a truck past the XX warehouse at Yiwu Port when they noticed a package placed in front of the warehouse. Defendant Zheng then drove the truck to provide cover while defendant Luo got out of the vehicle and loaded the package onto the truck. The two subsequently hid the package in a warehouse on the first floor of Building XX, Unit 1, Houfu Community, Beiyuan Street, in a certain city. The stolen package had been left in front of the XX warehouse at Yiwu Port by the victim, Li, containing 27 bags of cuffs, with an assessed value of 14,173 RMB. The stolen goods have since been recovered and returned to the victim. The facts of the case, to which the defendants Zheng and Luo raised no objections during the trial, are substantiated by evidence, including the list of seized items, the list of returned items, the notice of evidence collection, the list of evidence materials received, identification documents, the arrest record, testimonies from witnesses Jiang and Sun, a statement from the victim Li, a price appraisal report, the scene identification transcript, video surveillance footage, as well as the confessions of the defendants Zheng and Luo, all sufficient to support the findings.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charges: At around 3 a.m. on July 16, 2014, after premeditation, defendants Shi and Liu went to the entrance of an internet cafe on Qingdao Road, Shuiji Subdistrict Office, Laixi City, where they stole a white "Wangcheng" brand two-wheeled motorcycle from the victim, Li Mouying. According to the appraisal, it was valued at 7,200 RMB. To substantiate the above facts, the prosecution presented to the court the report records, details of the arrest, the appraisal opinion, relevant documentary evidence, witness testimonies, the defendants' confessions, household registration proofs, and other evidence.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain county charges: At around 5 a.m. on December 15, 2015, defendant Li contacted defendant Wang and asked him to pick up students from a certain kindergarten. On the same day, at around 7 a.m., Wang was driving a small van with the license plate Anhui S×××××, carrying teachers and students, and was intercepted by traffic police while traveling on Yingbin Avenue in a certain county. Upon investigation, the vehicle was found to have a seating capacity of 7 people but was actually carrying 24 people, exceeding the limit by 242%. Li is the person in charge of a certain kindergarten in a township of the county. The prosecution presented relevant documentary evidence, identification records, witness testimonies, audio-visual materials, and the defendants’ confessions and defenses, believing that the actions of defendants Wang and Li violated item (3), section 2 of article x of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. They should be held criminally responsible for x crime and requested the court to sentence them according to law. Defendants Wang and Li did not object to the facts and charges brought by the prosecution. Upon examination, it was found that at around 5 a.m. on December 15, 2015, defendant Li (the person in charge of a certain kindergarten) contacted defendant Wang to pick up students. On the same day, at around 7 a.m., Wang was driving a small van with the license plate Anhui S×××××, carrying teachers and students, and was intercepted by the duty police officers from the traffic police brigade of the Public Security Bureau of a certain county at a kilometer mark on Yingbin Avenue in the county. Upon investigation, the vehicle was found to have a seating capacity of 7 but was actually carrying 24 people, including 22 students, exceeding the limit by 242%. These facts were not disputed by defendants Wang and Li during the trial, and were corroborated by evidence such as the case acceptance form, records of the arrival process, driver information inquiry results, household registration certificates, criminal record inquiry results, documentary evidence, identification records, audio-visual materials, the testimony of witness Yang, and the confessions and defenses of defendants Wang and Li, sufficient to establish the facts.


Upon trial, it was found that on November 12, 2014, at around 1 PM, the defendant Ceng, in collusion with the defendant Ke, sold a small package of methamphetamine weighing 0.4 grams for 100 RMB to an individual named Li at Ceng's temporary residence located at Room 505, No. 448, Huizhan Road, Siming District, of this city. They were apprehended by the police on the spot. The transaction money, drugs (already processed by the police according to law), mobile phones used for contacting, electronic scales, bongs, tin foil, and plastic bags were also seized. The aforementioned facts were not contested by the defendants Ceng and Ke during the court trial. There were confessions made before the court hearing, testimony by witness Li, identification records by relevant parties, records and photographs of the seized drugs, money, mobile phones, electronic scales, bongs, tin foil, and plastic bags, inventory of seized items, weighing records, the "Drug Test Report" from Xiamen Public Security Bureau, and receipts for the submission of drug samples to a provincial authority. Communication records, detailed descriptions of the arrest process and investigation work, and evidence of Ceng's and Ke’s previous criminal records and household registration information confirmed these findings and are sufficient to establish guilt.


Upon examination, it was found that defendant Feng, due to inability to repay external debts, conspired with defendant Ma to rent a car from a car rental company and then pawn it to repay the debts. On June 18, 2014, defendants Feng and Ma went to Pingyi Hongda Leasing Company, signed a lease contract, and fraudulently obtained a Hyundai car with the license plate number Lu Q××××× from Zhao. The two defendants later pawned the car to Li in a certain town for the price of 16,000 yuan. Feng kept 15,000 yuan and gave Ma 1,000 yuan. According to an assessment, the car was valued at 28,000 yuan. After being brought to justice, defendants Feng and Ma truthfully confessed their criminal conduct. It was also found that defendant Feng had reached a settlement agreement with the victim Zhao regarding civil compensation. Feng compensated Zhao with 35,000 yuan for the car and rental fees (already paid), and victim Zhao forgave the criminal conduct of defendants Feng and Ma. The aforementioned facts are supported by the statements of victim Zhao, the testimony of witness Li, the car rental contract provided by the Public Security Bureau, the valuation report of the involved items, the incident report, household registration information, and the confessions of the two defendants during the investigation. The two defendants also raised no objections during the court trial, which is sufficient to establish these facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place accused defendants Xiang, He, Tao, Su, and Yang. On the evening of September 6, 2014, defendant Xiang had a dispute with Qin, a certain person, while showing a movie in a village in the local chemical district. Xiang then called defendants He, Tao, and Liu (handled separately) for assistance. Defendants He and Tao arrived and had a confrontation with Qin and Xiang A, whom Qin had invited to mediate. Subsequently, defendant Tao called Liu to inform him of the situation. Liu then invited defendants Su and Yang and instructed defendant He to prepare machetes and other tools. Defendant Yang drove a van to transport Liu and the five defendants to the street snack stall at the entrance of Liming Community, Baijixinfu, Baiyushan Street, in this district. Liu, along with defendants He, Tao, and Su, got off the van and chased after Xiang A, Qin, a certain person, and others who were having a late night snack with machetes. During the altercation, Liu and defendants He and Tao injured Xiang A, causing scalp lacerations, a tear-off fracture of the skull's outer plate, a split fracture of the right tibia cortex, multiple skin lacerations across the body, and cumulative body surface scar length of 44.3 cm. Afterwards, defendant Yang drove Liu and defendants He, Tao, and Su away from the scene, while defendant Xiang took Xiang A to the hospital for treatment. According to the forensic identification by Wuhan Ping'an Forensic Institution, Xiang A's injury


Upon examination, it was found that on November 15, 2015, Ling deceived Miu from a certain area into coming to a certain county under the pretense of introducing her to work as a nanny in the mainland. During the journey, Ling contacted the defendant Sheng. Sheng brought Ling and Miu home to meet Liu. Due to the language barrier, Sheng and Liu communicated with Miu through Ling. Despite knowing that Miu was from a certain area and unaware of her real intention for coming to the county, the defendants Sheng and Liu paid Ling a total of 57,000 yuan in cash and remittances to keep Miu as a wife for Liu. Sheng then withheld Miu's ID card and travel permit. It was also found that after the incident, the public security authorities transferred Miu through the joint anti-trafficking office in Ruili to the anti-trafficking officer for the region in Muse. The facts of the case were undisputed by the defendants Liu and Sheng during the court trial. These facts were corroborated by evidence including household registration certificates, the transfer documents of the anti-trafficking case between the two countries, explanatory notes, witness testimonies, on-site inspection records, identification transcripts, evidence retrieval documents, evidence receipt lists, and return lists, which are sufficient for the conclusion.


The People's Procuratorate of Maonan District in a certain city charged that at about 22:00 on April 14, 2014, the defendant Liao, on the grounds that friends Li Moumou and Ya Moumou were arrested and punished by the police station due to drug use and suspecting informant Mo Moumou of tipping off, colluded with defendant Lin, Li Moumou (handled in a separate case), and others to forcibly take informant Mo Moumou into a car on a section of Huaxi Street in a certain city. They took Mo Moumou to the home of Li Moumou at the Aiqun Committee in a certain town, a certain residence in the town, Room 902 of Guanyi Hotel, and to an abandoned orchard cement house in a certain town for illegal detention. It was not until 18:00 on April 16, 2014, that informant Mo Moumou escaped. During the illegal detention of Mo Moumou, defendants Liao, Lin, and others assaulted Mo Moumou, forcing Mo Moumou to admit to tipping off, leading to Li Moumou and Lin being arrested by the police, and forced Mo Moumou to write an IOU of thirty thousand yuan to Liao. According to the identification, Mo Moumou suffered multiple soft tissue injuries all over his body, with the injuries reaching the level of minor injury.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain locality charged: Since March 2012, defendant Yang, in collusion with defendants Wei and Zhu (in another case), committed over ten thefts by having Wei drive a car while Yang and Zhu climbed over walls to enter construction sites. They stole more than 3,000 construction fasteners. According to the appraisal, each stolen fastener is valued at 3.4 yuan, with a total value exceeding 10,000 yuan. After the thefts, the two defendants sold most of the stolen fasteners at low prices to You, who was operating a recycling business for scrap items and has been convicted. You knowingly acquired the stolen fasteners. Wei and others squandered all the illicit proceeds. Defendant Wei, with the help of his family, returned 10,000 yuan of stolen money, which was then returned to the victim by the police. The People's Procuratorate of a certain locality requested that, in accordance with Article X of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, defendants Yang and Wei be convicted of X crime. Defendants Yang and Wei did not contest the charges by the People's Procuratorate and pleaded guilty, requesting leniency. The facts established through the hearing were consistent with those charged by the prosecution, and hereby confirmed by this court. It was also determined that defendant Yang surrendered on September 19, 2012, and was put under house arrest the following day. Due to his failure to truthfully confess, he was officially arrested on December 9 of the same year. Defendant Wei was apprehended on September 29, 2012, criminally detained on the same day, and officially arrested on October 30 of the same year. The facts above were not contested by the defendants during the trial, and they were corroborated by evidence presented by the prosecution, including the crime registration form, case filing decision, documents on coercive measures against the defendants, the circumstances of the defendants' arrest, the statements of victims Lan, Wan, Dai, Li Jia, Hu, and Xu, the testimonies of witnesses Li Yi, Xia, and Lu, site inspection data, price appraisal conclusions, defendant's identification records, explanations of identified objects, the seizure and return of items list by the Luzhou Public Security Bureau, and the defendants' confessions and defenses, and were sufficient to confirm the charges.


The defendants Chen, Gan, and Zhang have no objection to the facts charged by the public prosecution, but they request leniency. The facts of the case found by this Court are consistent with the content of the charges by the public prosecution. The evidence proving the above facts includes: 1) documentary evidence such as household registration information, arrest procedures, seizure lists, and statements of circumstances; 2) testimonies from witnesses such as Jin, Zou, and Zhang; 3) statements and defenses from the defendants Chen, Gan, and Zhang; 4) examination records and identification records. The facts of the case are clear, and the evidence is indeed sufficient to establish these facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city charged that in early August 2016, the defendant Yang rented a storefront next to a supermarket in a certain district of a certain city to the defendant Guan for 1,000 yuan per month for the purpose of placing gambling machines for others to gamble. During August 2016, the defendant Guan gradually placed two gambling machines (with a total of 14 individual operation units) in the storefront for others to gamble, and paid Yang 1,000 yuan in rent and a 500 yuan deposit. At approximately 7:50 PM on August 29, 2016, police officers from the public security bureau of a certain district arrived at the location and arrested the staff member Yang and participants in the gambling, including Wang, and seized two gambling machine motherboards and gambling funds totaling 1,270 yuan on the spot. The security patrol unit of the public security bureau of a certain district identified them as 14 gambling machines. On September 1, 2016, officers from the security patrol unit of the public security bureau of a certain district lawfully summoned the defendant Yang to the case; on September 6, 2016, the defendant Guan voluntarily surrendered to the security patrol unit of the public security bureau of a certain district. The above facts were not contested by the defendants Guan and Yang during the trial and were confirmed by their confessions at the public security agency, the process of how they were brought to the case, the administrative penalty decision, the list of confiscated items, population information inquiry, testimonies of witnesses Yang, Wang, Zou, and Min, identification records, the gambling machine identification report, site photos, and other evidence, which is sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city charged that the victim Liu M received a deceptive internet recruitment from a pyramid scheme organization and arrived by train in a certain city of a certain province at around 16:00 on March 24, 2015, and was taken by members of the pyramid scheme to room 705 in a certain district of the city, a pyramid scheme den. The victim Liu M was beaten by pyramid scheme personnel "Liu Y", "Tong Mm", and the defendant Yan and others for refusing to join the pyramid scheme. Later, to force the victim Liu M to join the pyramid scheme, the defendant Yan instructed defendants Xiao, Guo, and Niu to illegally deprive the victim Liu M's personal freedom through threats, intimidation, corporal punishment, and brainwashing sessions. At 13:00 on March 25, 2015, the public security authorities rescued the victim Liu M from the pyramid scheme den in room 705 in a certain district of a certain city in a certain province. According to the evaluation by the Public Security Judicial Appraisal Center in a certain district of a certain city in a certain province, the injuries of the victim Liu M were classified as minor injuries.


The prosecution charges: In September 2015, defendant Wen sold drugs worth 200 yuan and 300 yuan respectively on two occasions in front of the Huaguo Hotel in a certain city to drug user Li. On one day in October 2015, defendant Yao assisted Wen in selling drugs worth 300 yuan in front of the Huaguo Hotel to drug user Li. To substantiate the aforementioned facts, the prosecution has provided corresponding evidence to the court, asserting that the actions of defendants Wen and Yao constitute the crime of x, and recommending a sentence of more than three years and less than four years imprisonment for defendant Wen, along with a fine, and a sentence of more than six months and less than eighteen months imprisonment for defendant Yao, along with a fine. They request punishment according to Article x of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. Defendants Wen and Yao have no objections to the facts and evidence charged by the prosecution. Upon examination, it was found that one day in September 2015, defendant Wen went to the front of the Huaguo Hotel in a certain city, selling drugs worth 200 yuan (ketamine, K powder) to drug user Li; one evening in September of the same year, defendant Wen again went to the same location, selling drugs worth 300 yuan of "K powder" to Li; and in October 2015, defendant Yao went to the same location, helping defendant Wen sell drugs worth 300 yuan of "K powder" to user Li. On November 5, 2015, the police arrested defendants Wen and Yao, and confiscated suspicious drugs weighing 1.2 grams, an electronic scale, and a weighing container from defendant Wen. The Yangjiang Public Security Judicial Appraisal Center confirmed that the confiscated suspicious drugs contained 1.2g of ketamine (K powder). Defendants Wen and Yao did not dispute the aforementioned facts during the trial, and the facts are corroborated by the case registration form, the decision to file a case, household registration certificates, the arrest report, inspection records, seizure decision, seizure list, seizure record, stolen goods recovery record, identification photos, scene identification, scene investigation record, scene identification record, call records, statements, appraisal, witness Li’s testimony, identification records, and other evidence, which are sufficient for conviction.


After trial, it was found: 1. Between April 2016 and August 3, 2016, defendants Zhou and Wang conspired to set up seven gambling machines for others to gamble at the China Sports Lottery store No. 45 in the commercial plaza of a certain district in this city operated by defendant Wang. They profited over RMB 17,000, of which defendant Zhou received over RMB 10,000 and defendant Wang received over RMB 7,000. 2. Between April 2016 and August 3, 2016, defendants Zhou and Yin conspired to set up two gambling machines for others to gamble at the China Welfare Lottery store on a certain road in a certain district in this city operated by defendant Yin. They profited over RMB 18,000, with each defendant Zhou and Yin receiving over RMB 9,000. In June of the same year, defendant Yin individually set up another gambling machine in his store for others to gamble. After the incident, defendant Zhou voluntarily surrendered and truthfully confessed his crime. Defendant Zhou returned illegal gains of RMB 20,000, defendant Wang returned illegal gains of RMB 8,000, and defendant Yin returned illegal gains of RMB 10,000. These facts were undisputed by defendants Zhou, Wang, and Yin during the trial, and were sufficiently supported by evidence including witness testimonies from Shen, Yan, Wang1, Yang, Ge, Chen, and others, as well as the seizure warrant, seizure list, account book, inspection records, photographs, etc.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city charges: 1. In the early morning of September 13, 2008, defendants Wang and Zhu came to No. 68 Yongning Road, Chashan Street, a certain district of a certain city, and stole 50,000 yuan in cash from the victim Jia. 2. Around 2 a.m. on March 29, 2013, defendant Wang came to the vicinity of No. 22 Beiwangyi Road in a certain economic development zone and stole two mobile phones (appraised at 1,900 yuan) from the victim Zhang in a dormitory of a factory. On February 17, 2014, defendant Wang voluntarily went to the public security organ to surrender and truthfully confessed the aforementioned facts. During the court trial, defendants Wang and Zhu had no objections to the aforementioned facts, which are corroborated by the statements of victims Jia and Zhang, the testimony of witness Peng, the identification record and photos, on-site investigation records and photos, evidence receipt lists and surveillance footage, price appraisal report, confession recognition report, situation explanation, arrest process document, population information, criminal judgment, criminal archive materials, and other evidence, sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain area accused that at the end of December 2019, the defendants Li and Hui, on the grounds of Liu (person 1) having an inappropriate sexual relationship with his wife Yang, threatened to ruin his reputation and expose him to his family to extort money from Liu. Subsequently, Liu was forced to agree to pay 250,000 RMB. The two defendants continued to threaten and intimidate Liu via WeChat. On January 6, 2020, at a China Bank in the Hexi District of Tianjin, Liu paid Li and Hui 100,000 RMB. On June 8 of the same year, near a certain location, defendants Li and Hui were arrested by public security officers while trying to extort the remaining 150,000 RMB, unsuccessfully. In support of the above accusations, the prosecution presented evidence in court, including WeChat chat records, bank transfer records, witness testimonies, the victim's statement, the defendants' confessions, identification records, case origin, and the details of the arrest.


Based on the trial findings, around 12:00 a.m. on August 2, 2014, the defendants Chen and Liang were involved in an incident where Chen was driving a moped without a license plate, carrying Liang as a passenger. The defendants went to the section of Zhonggang Road in Yuzhou District, in front of the Shimeixiangfen Health Club. Chen drove close to a person named Zhang, who was riding an electric bicycle, while Liang snatched a red handbag from the stomach area of a person named Song. The stolen bag contained over seventy yuan in cash, twenty Hong Kong dollars, bank cards, and a Xiaomi 3 mobile phone belonging to Zhang. Chen and Liang later sold the stolen phone, obtaining 800 yuan, which they split equally. According to the Yulin City Price Certification Center's appraisal, the value of the stolen phone was 1,391 yuan. During the trial, defendants Chen and Liang did not object to these facts. Additional evidence supporting these findings includes the case registration form, arrest process report, on-site identification records and photos, seizure decision document, seizure list, return of items document list, electric bicycle invoice, inspection certificate, extraction records, household registration proof, Xiaomi phone shopping receipt, interrogation records of Song and Zhang, Chen's interrogation record, and Yulin City Price Certification Center's Price Appraisal Certificate No. (2014) 436, all of which are sufficient for establishing the facts.


The prosecution alleges that at around 3:00 PM on January 21, 2015, defendant Gao, who was upset over losing money gambling and suspected the victim, Zeng, of cheating at poker, arranged with defendant Xiao and Xiao A (handled in a separate case) to take the victim Zeng by car from the front of Jianshun Auto Repair Shop on Hong Kong Road in a certain district of this city to the embankment behind the Xinrong Village long-distance bus station in the same district. There, they used means of verbal abuse and physical assault to forcibly take 4,700 RMB in cash from the victim Zeng. The next day, defendant Gao was apprehended by public security when he returned to Hong Kong Road to demand money from the victim Zeng. After being brought to justice, defendant Gao assisted the police by notifying defendant Xiao to appear. The stolen money in this case has been recovered and returned to the victim. In support of the alleged criminal facts, the prosecution read out and presented evidence in court, including photographs of physical evidence; documentation of the arrest and case solving by the public security; identification documents; an administrative penalty decision notice; seizure records and lists; a letter of understanding; the victim's statement; identification records; and confessions from the defendants.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain locality charged that in the early morning of June 13, 2014, the defendants Tang and Zhou rode a bicycle to various locations including Jinqiao South Road and Guihua West Road in Fuchun Street of this city. Using methods such as prying open windows and climbing through windows, they committed theft on three occasions, stealing items including cigarettes, computers, and cash, with a total value of RMB 39,728. After the incident, some of the stolen goods were recovered and returned to the victims. Details are as follows: 1. In the early morning of June 13, 2014, the defendants Tang and Zhou went to No. 128 Guihua West Road in Fuchun Street of this city. Defendant Zhou acted as a lookout while defendant Tang climbed through a window to enter the K潮 Children's Clothing Store operated by Hong. They stole approximately RMB 1,000 in cash and a black Lenovo laptop (valued at RMB 5,510), totaling approximately RMB 6,510. 2. In the same early morning, the defendants Tang and Zhou went to No. 71-8 Jinqiao South Road in Fuchun Street. Defendant Zhou acted as a lookout while defendant Tang pried open a window to enter the Tianjin Tobacco and Liquor Store operated by Wang, stealing a batch of cigarettes and liquor with a total value of RMB 27,473. 3. In the same early morning, the defendants Tang and Zhou went to No. 5-2 Jinqiao South Road in Fuchun Street. Defendant Zhou acted as a lookout while defendant Tang used the same method to enter the Fuchun Clinic, stealing RMB 2,800 in cash and a Lenovo all-in-one computer (valued at RMB 2,945), with a total value of RMB 5,745. To prove the aforementioned facts, the prosecution read out and presented relevant evidence in court to substantiate the charges.


The prosecution agency charges that in October 2012, the defendant Fang, together with Wu B (already sentenced), set up a gambling operation successively at a certain location in Wujing Community, a town in a certain city, and at Beautify Garden Building 10, Unit 1, Room 202, the residence of the defendant Wu. They gathered Tang, Gao, Yang, and others to gamble five times using the "Tongzigong" method. Wu A (already sentenced) was responsible for shuffling the cards, and they collectively profited more than 8,200 yuan through commissions.

On the nights of November 2, 3, 5, 6, and the afternoon of the 7th of the same month, Chen, together with the defendant Wu, set up a gambling operation at Room 102, No. 19-1, Old Hospital Dormitory, in a town of a certain city. They gathered Tang, Liu, and others to gamble five times using the "Tongzigong" method. Wu B was responsible for contacting participants, while Wu A was responsible for shuffling the cards, illegally profiting a total of more than 7,000 yuan through commissions.

The defendants raised no objections to the above criminal facts during the court hearing. There is supporting evidence provided by accomplice testimonies, witness statements, inspection records, the list of seized items, accomplice criminal judgments, police administrative penalty decisions, arrest details, and household registration certificates, all of which are sufficient to substantiate the charges.


Upon trial, it was found that between January and March 2015, the defendant Lin, either alone or in collusion with Zhang, repeatedly allowed Gao, Guan, and Zhang Jia to use methamphetamine (commonly known as ice) at a rented property located in Unit **, Building **, ** Community, ** City. Specifically, the incidents are as follows: 1. On a day in January 2015, defendants Lin and Zhang allowed Gao to use methamphetamine. 2. On a day in mid-February 2015, defendants Lin and Zhang allowed Gao to use methamphetamine. 3. On March 4, 2015, defendants Lin and Zhang allowed Gao to use methamphetamine. 4. On a day in the lunar first month of 2015, defendant Lin allowed Guan to use methamphetamine. 5. On a day in the lunar first month of 2015, defendant Lin allowed Zhang Jia to use methamphetamine. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Lin and Zhang and their defense during the trial. They are corroborated by physical evidence seizure lists, written case registration forms, case handling descriptions, arrest reports, criminal judgment documents, administrative penalty decision documents, household registration information, testimonies from witnesses such as Gao and Guan, and on-site testing reports from the Public Security Bureau of ** City, all of which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charges: On March 2 and March 4, 2015, the defendant Wu respectively allowed Wang, Zhang to use methamphetamine in his rented apartment located on the 27th floor of Jindi Junyuan in this district. In February 2015, the defendant Zhang respectively allowed Jiang, Wang, Wu to use methamphetamine in his rented apartment located on the 27th floor of Jindi Junyuan in this district.


The People's Procuratorate in a certain area charges that starting from March 9, 2016, the defendants Zhao and Fang provided gambling tools, including playing cards and dice, to organize gambling activities for others in a room on the seventh floor at 204 Yulin Road, Shishi City, and profited by taking a cut from the bets. Defendant Fang was hired to handleskimming in the casino. On the 12th of the same month, law enforcement officers uncovered this casino, arresting defendants Zhao and Fang along with 17 other gamblers on the spot. They seized 16,180 RMB in gambling money, 8,200 RMB in illegal profits, 40 playing cards, and 3 dice. It was further found that the 16,180 RMB in gambling money seized on site was confiscated by the Shishi City Public Security Bureau. During the operation of the casino, Zhao illegally earned 14,000 RMB (including the 8,200 RMB seized on site), while Fang illegally earned 600 RMB. The above facts were not contested by Zhao and Fang during the trial and are supported by the testimonies of witnesses Deng, Wen, Li, Liao, Qiu, Huang (甲), Zhang, Cai, Wang, Huang (乙), Li, Tian, Liu, Tang, Liu, Gao, and Long, as well as on-site photos, inspection records, identification records, seizure decision documents, seizure lists, evidence preservation decision documents, evidence preservation lists, administrative penalty decisions, lists of confiscated items, criminal judgment, certificate of release after serving the sentence, work statements by the public security organ, population information, and the confessions of defendants Zhao and Fang. These are sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charges that at around 16:00 on June 27, 2012, the defendant Lv, under the instructions of the defendant Ye, with the intent to profit, sold three books of general quota invoices from the Zhejiang Provincial Local Taxation Bureau, totalling 151 invoices, to Sun in the restroom of the lobby of Jindu Hotel, Jiaogong Road, Xihu District, in this city for 300 yuan. They were caught red-handed by the public security authorities. Upon appraisal, all 199 invoices were counterfeit. The aforementioned facts were not contested by the defendants Ye and Lv during the court proceedings, and were corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses Sun, Jiang, and Zhang, along with the identification records, list of seized items and photos, household registration certificates, the account of the arrest, and the invoice appraisal results certificate, providing sufficient grounds for conviction.


The defendants Wu, Zou, Chen, Guo, and Fu have no objections to the criminal facts charged by the prosecution. The facts of the case as determined by the court are consistent with the charges brought by the prosecution, and the court confirms this. The evidence supporting the above facts includes: testimonies from witnesses Wu, Zou, Chen, Guo, Fu, among others; testimonies from witnesses Tan, Zhang, Hu, and others; identification records; records of capture, household registration certificates, lists of seized items, and restitution documents. Furthermore, the confessions of defendants Wu, Zou, Chen, Guo, and Fu corroborate the aforementioned evidence, making it sufficient for determination. The facts of the case are clear, and the evidence is conclusive and sufficient.


A certain people's procuratorate charged that on the evening of October 14, 2015, police officers from the Suichuan County Public Security Bureau intercepted defendants Zhong and Lan on their way back from hunting. The officers seized two bird guns, two bags of steel balls (totaling 38 pieces), two bottles of powder (approximately 60 grams each), and two bottles of red powder from the defendants. Investigation revealed that defendants Zhong and Lan had both been in possession of one bird gun each for a long time without obtaining a gun permit. According to the appraisal, the bird guns possessed by defendants Zhong and Lan were homemade black powder guns that used gunpowder as a propellant to fire metal projectiles and were capable of causing injury. After being apprehended, defendants Zhong and Lan truthfully confessed their crimes. During the court hearing, defendants Zhong and Lan did not dispute the aforementioned facts, which were corroborated by appraisal opinions, documentary evidence, and physical evidence (photographs), providing sufficient grounds for conviction.


The prosecution alleges: At around 5:00 PM on October 24, 2012, the defendants Zhou and Wei, together with "Chen" (handled in a separate case), after premeditating, went to the basement parking lot of the Women's and Children's Hospital on Hongli Road in a certain district of this city to steal. Zhou and Wei were responsible for looking out, while "Chen" pried open the trunk of the victim Xu's car and stole a laptop, a digital camera, and a camera lens from inside the trunk (after appraisal, the total value was 9,648 RMB). On the evening of November 18, 2012, the defendants Zhou and Wei, together with Cao (handled in a separate case), after premeditating, went to the parking lot of the Xiangmihu Resort in a certain district of this city to steal. Zhou and Wei were responsible for looking out, while Cao pried open the trunk of the victim Zhang's car and stole four bottles of Maotai and two bottles of Wuliangye (after appraisal, the total value was 8,800 RMB) from inside the trunk. On November 21, 2012, the defendants Zhou and Wei were apprehended and brought to justice.


A certain People's Procuratorate accused that on November 19, 2016, at approximately 4:15 a.m., defendants Xiao and Du, along with others, without cause, assaulted the victim Liu near Tonghai Hotel on Kangshen Road, Zhoupu Town, in this district. This resulted in contusion to Liu's left eye, as well as retinal and choroidal tears to the left eye. Upon examination, it was found that the victim Liu's corrected vision in the left eye was 0.02, matching the criteria for Level 3 blindness in the left eye, constituting a Level 2 serious injury. On March 13, 2017, defendant Du was apprehended by public security authorities and truthfully confessed to the aforementioned criminal facts. On March 14, 2017, defendant Xiao went to the Zhoupu Police Station of the Pudong Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau to deliver breakfast to defendant Du and was subsequently apprehended by police officers, after which he truthfully confessed to the aforementioned criminal facts. Following the incident, defendant Du, with the help of his family, compensated the victim Liu 75,000 RMB and obtained forgiveness. During the trial of this court, defendant Xiao, with the assistance of friends and relatives, separately compensated the victim Liu 75,000 RMB and obtained forgiveness. The victim Liu requested that the two defendants be given probation. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants Xiao and Du during the court trial, and were supported by evidence confirmed in court, including the victim Liu’s written statement and identification records, surveillance videos and screenshots, injury examination notices, the supplementary appraisal opinion from Shanghai Fenglin Forensic Science Institute, letters of forgiveness, basic information on permanent residents, detailed information from police business archive cards, materials provided by public security authorities on the occurrence of the case and the capture process, and the defendants Xiao and Du's confession records, which are sufficient to establish the case.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city charges: 1. On December 4, 2015, the defendants Wang and Zhang, after prior conspiracy, drove a van to a roadside in front of the village committee of a certain village in a certain town of a certain district in a certain city, and using the method of a wire loop around the neck, stole a local dog owned by the victim Zhu, valued at 153 RMB; 2. On December 4, 2015, the defendants Wang and Zhang, after prior conspiracy, drove a van to a roadside of a certain village in a certain town of a certain district in a certain city, and using the method of a wire loop around the neck, stole a local dog owned by the victim Li, valued at 225 RMB; 3. On the noon of December 7, 2015, the defendants Wang and Zhang, after prior conspiracy, drove a van to the roadside going north from the east bridge of Mingxing Village, a certain town in a certain district of a certain city, and using methods such as a wire loop around the neck, stole a local dog owned by the victim Xie, valued at 270 RMB; 4. On the morning of December 8, 2015, the defendants Wang and Zhang, after prior conspiracy, drove a van to the side of a toilet at the entrance of a certain village in a certain town of a certain district in a certain city, and using the method of a wire loop around the neck, stole a local dog owned by the victim Yan, valued at 218 RMB; 5. On the morning of December 8, 2015, the defendants Wang and Zhang, after prior conspiracy, drove a van to the h


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charges: On the morning of March 21, 2015, defendant Ding, together with defendant Zhang, after premeditation, carried hydraulic pliers and went to the bicycle parking area at the east gate of the Yinzuo Shopping Mall in Kuiwen District, Weifang City. They used the hydraulic pliers to cut the iron chain lock and steal a Flying Pigeon brand colored electric bicycle. According to the appraisal, the stolen electric bicycle was valued at 1,457 RMB. The electric bicycle involved in the case was lawfully seized by the public security authorities and returned to the victim. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Ding and Zhang during the trial process. The facts are supported by documentary evidence such as the arrest process and population information; the testimony of witness Zhong; the statement of the victim Feng; the confessions and defenses of the defendants; and the appraisal opinion and valuation conclusion document of the involved items by a certain province.


The prosecution alleges: 1. On November 2, 2011, the defendant Yao, entrusted by Zhang (already sentenced), through defendants Tang and Wu, purchased from a police station in a certain town, county, and province, a household registration book and ID card for "Ma Li," whose registered residence is in a certain town, county, and province, for 11,000 RMB, for Qu (already sentenced). Qu used these documents for purchasing real estate and registering a company. The defendants Yao, Tang, and Wu each profited 2,000 RMB, 1,000 RMB, and 1,000 RMB, respectively. 2. On May 8, 2012, the defendant Xi, entrusted by Zhang, through Cong (handled in another case), purchased from a police station in a certain town, county, and province, a household registration book and ID card for "Li," whose registered residence is in a certain town, county, and province, for 11,000 RMB, for Qu and Zhao. Zhao used these documents for purchasing real estate. The defendant Xi profited 4,000 RMB from this.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain locality charges: On the evening of August 31, 2015, at around 9 PM, the defendants Xiong and Huo, after premeditation, carried out theft at the third-floor warehouse of the local Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. Defendant Huo entered the premises to commit the theft, while defendant Xiong acted as the lookout. They stole a total of 1,029 mobile phone display screens and 3,120 integrated circuits, valued at 106,203 RMB. On the evening of September 1, 2015, at around 9 PM, police officers arrested and brought defendants Xiong and Huo to justice. In support of the aforementioned charges, the prosecution presented and read aloud the following evidence in court: 1. The process of capturing the suspects and solving the case; 2. Reporting materials; 3. Witness testimonies; 4. Lists of seized and returned items; 5. Case notes and photographs; 6. Price appraisal report; 7. Confessions and defenses of the defendants, etc.


The People's Procuratorate of Yubei District in a certain city charges: At about 16:00 on March 4, 2016, defendants Zhou and Liu conspired to commit theft and arrived at the pedestrian crossing on XXX Road in Yubei District, a certain city. Defendant Liu acted as a lookout while defendant Zhou used tweezers to steal a Yitong brand mobile phone valued at 742 yuan from the upper pocket of the victim Liao's jacket. Subsequently, the two defendants, using the same method, stole a ZTE brand mobile phone valued at 313 yuan from the upper pocket of the victim Long's jacket outside the storefront at No. XXX, XX Lane, nearby. While attempting to leave the scene, the two defendants were caught by the police. After being brought to justice, defendants Zhou and Liu truthfully confessed to the theft of mobile phones. The stolen phones have been returned to the victims by the police. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Zhou and Liu during the court hearing, and they are supported by evidence such as: the registration form of the case, decision to file the case; the capture process; the household information forms of defendants Zhou and Liu; the confessions and defenses of defendants Zhou and Liu; statements of the victims Liao and Long; the identification records; extraction records; the list and decision of seizure; the return of items and respective vouchers; the on-site identification records and photos of the criminal case; the price appraisal conclusion; the criminal judgment No. (2015) Jiufa Xingchuzi No. 00007 by the Jiulongpo District People's Court and the proof of release; the criminal judgment No. (2009) Jiufa Xingchuzi No. 436 by the Jiulongpo District People's Court and the certificate of release upon completion of sentence, etc., are sufficient to establish the case.


The prosecution accuses: Between late April 2014 and May 23, 2014, defendants Lan, Ji, and Cao set up gambling machines for others to gamble, specifically "fishing machines" with the function of cashing out points for gambling at an unlicensed game room on the first floor of Building 22, Area 3, Xinhe, District, in a certain city. They profited illegally by exchanging 100 yuan RMB for 10,000 points, gaining more than 6,000 yuan RMB. After the incident, defendant Lan voluntarily surrendered to the public security authorities. The actions of defendants Lan, Ji, and Cao violated the provisions of Article x of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and constituted x crime. Defendant Lan is a repeat offender. A request is made for legal sentencing. These facts are not disputed by defendants Lan, Ji, and Cao during the trial, and are corroborated by the following evidence provided by the prosecution and verified during the court hearing: 1. Household registration certificates; 2. Statements and defenses of defendants Lan, Ji, and Cao; 3. Testimonies of witnesses Zhan, Xu, and Fan; 4. Identification opinion on electronic game equipment; 5. Identification transcripts; 6. Inspection transcripts; 7. On-site identification transcripts and photos; 8. Electronic evidence inspection transcripts; 9. Criminal judgment; 10. Capture process; 11. Process of bringing the case to trial; 12. Administrative punishment decision; 13. Detention decision, etc. This evidence is indeed sufficient to establish the facts.


The prosecution alleges that in March 2012, a young man from Anhui, Lu Mouyi, accompanied by relatives and friends, came to a certain city in a certain province, and asked Fan (who has been sentenced) to help him find a woman to marry. Later, Fan conspired with Zhou (who has been sentenced) to bring Lu Mouyi and others to a certain lake, where the defendant Shen pretended to be the bride. Defendant Fan and Li (who is being handled in a separate case) pretended to be Shen's godmother and uncle, respectively, and defrauded Lu Mouyi of 24,800 yuan by means of receiving a bride price and an introduction fee. On March 30, 2012, under the pretext of buying clothes, defendant Shen went with Lu Mouyi to Longkedu Supermarket at a certain lake and escaped while Lu Mouyi was not paying attention. The above facts were not disputed by defendants Fan and Shen during the trial, and are corroborated by the victim Lu Mouyi's statements; testimony from witnesses Wang, Zhou, Li, Lu Moujia, Xue, and Yang; the identification record, capture process, case handling statement, restitution record, receipt vouchers; household registration information and the confessions and defenses of defendants Fan and Shen, all of which are sufficient to support the verdict.


The prosecution alleges that on August 29, 2014, defendant Zhang forged a wage IOU with Lei's signature in order to collect a debt from Lei. Zhang instructed defendants Xiao and Liu (who is currently at large) to fabricate claims that they both worked at Lei's peeling factory and that Lei had not paid the workers' wages. They then used the forged wage IOU to accuse Lei at the labor and public security departments. On September 11, 2014, the public security organ filed a case against Lei for allegedly refusing to pay labor remuneration and issued an online warrant for Lei's arrest. After the incident, defendants Zhang and Xiao voluntarily surrendered and truthfully confessed their crimes. These facts are not disputed by defendants Zhang and Xiao during the trial and are supported by the confessions of the defendants, the victim's statement, witness testimonies, the IOU, labor security inspection complaint registration form, investigation and inquiry transcripts, notice to correct within a time limit, case transfer form for suspected criminal cases, information and registration forms of the fugitive, explanation of surrender, and the identification of both defendants, among other evidence, which is sufficient to substantiate the charges.


The People's Procuratorate of Shangyu District in a certain city charged: 1. One evening around September 13, 2015, after prior conspiracy, the defendants Zheng and Zhang, in the parking lot behind the RT-Mart supermarket in Shangyu District of a certain city, stole a pink women's folding bicycle by prying with a knife and smashing the lock with a stone (the aforementioned vehicle has been seized by the public security organ). 2. On the evening of October 9, 2015, after prior conspiracy, the defendants Zheng and Zhang stole a white Merida bicycle, which belonged to the victim Wang, from in front of the Xin Da Tong Shopping Center in Shangyu District of a certain city by prying with a knife and smashing the lock with a stone. 3. On the evening of October 9, 2015, after prior conspiracy, the defendants Zheng and Zhang stole a white Jinyouyuan bicycle, which belonged to the victim Ji, from near the Haobilai Cafeteria on the pedestrian street of Shangyu District in a certain city by prying with a knife and smashing the lock with a stone. In summary, the defendants Zheng and Zhang committed theft on three occasions. The aforementioned facts were undisputed by the defendants Zheng and Zhang during the trial, and are sufficiently substantiated by the confessions of defendants Zheng and Zhang, the statements of victims Ji and Wang, identification records and photographs, search records and photographs, explanatory notes, surveillance video, the process of capture, and the basic resident information of both defendants.


Upon trial, it was found that in May 2015, the defendants Chen and Ceng repeatedly added non-edible borax during the production of rice dumplings at a home in a certain village, in a certain district, of a certain city, and sold them next to the West Street Market in the district. Approximately 1,300 borax-infused rice dumplings were sold, yielding a profit of about 1,500 yuan. Tests showed that the borax levels in the rice dumpling samples did not meet the standards specified in the "List of Non-edible Substances and Easily Abused Food Additives Subject to Possible Illegal Addition in Food (Summary of Batches 1-5)." The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Chen and Ceng during the court hearing and were corroborated by the prosecution's in-court presentation and the court's examination of the defendants' confessions, crime scene photographs, testimonies from witnesses Li Yi, Li Bing, Shen Yi, and Huang Yi, identifications and photographs of defendants Chen and Ceng, Huang Yi's identification of the sales slip and photos of the pharmacy he operated, test reports, site inspection records, site diagrams and photographs, evidence lists, case transfer documents, administrative enforcement materials, the apprehension process, and the defendants' household registration information. Defendant Chen did not contest the facts and charges brought by the prosecution and pleaded for leniency. Defense lawyer Kuang argued that defendant Chen is a first-time and occasional offender, who has consistently confessed his crimes truthfully, demonstrated good remorse, and due to only having an elementary education, lacked understanding of the harm caused by borax. Given the short duration and small quantity of borax added to the rice dumplings, and his subsequent voluntary cessation of such conduct, the social harm was minimal, and thus the court should impose a lenient sentence and consider probation. Defendant Ceng did not contest the facts and charges brought by the prosecution and pleaded for leniency. Defense lawyer Luo argued that defendant Ceng is a first-time and occasional offender, with a confession that should be considered for sentencing. He showed good remorse, played a minor role in the case, should be regarded as an accessory, and due to his low educational level, lacked understanding of the harm of borax. Furthermore, the crime was committed over a short duration with minimal social harm, and therefore the court should impose a lenient sentence and consider probation.


A certain local people's procuratorate charged: In December 2012, the defendant Liu and a villager, Tang A (at large), from a certain village committee in a certain town, discussed with others that Tang A and others would purchase an ancient camphor tree, located at Tongwei (a place name) in their village, which was marked and protected by the government (numbered 700). Subsequently, Tang A and the defendant Tang, among others, bought the ancient camphor tree for 20,000 yuan. At the end of December of the same year, without obtaining the necessary logging permits and disregarding the fact that it was a nationally protected ancient tree, the defendants Liu and Tang, together with Tang A, hired laborers and excavator drivers to trim the branches and dig up the stump of the ancient camphor tree. On December 31, staff from the forestry department, upon receiving a report, rushed to Tongwei to stop the activity. In early January 2013, the defendants Liu, Tang, and Tang A once again hired personnel to excavate the ancient camphor tree, sawing off its trunk and branches, and uprooting the stump, subsequently transporting it out of the village and selling it for 108,000 yuan to a person named Chang (nickname Duo) in a certain township (who has been transferred to the local public security organ for processing). According to the appraisal by forestry technicians, the illegally felled and destroyed ancient camphor tree was 300 years old, 38 meters tall, with a circumference of 500 centimeters (diameter of 1.59 meters), and a living volume of 34.1915 cubic meters. On March 12, 2014, the public security organ arrested the defendant Tang. Later, the defendant Tang returned 3,000 yuan of the illicit gains. On May 15, based on the information provided by defendant Tang, the public security organ arrested the defendant Liu. In response to the aforementioned charges, the prosecution submitted relevant evidence materials to this court, including confessions of the two defendants, witness testimonies, appraisal reports, the account of their capture, on-site investigation records, and bank inquiry lists.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain county charges: On May 18, 2016, at about 11 a.m., while police officers from the Water Police Station of the Public Security Bureau of a certain county were investigating slot machines placed in Gao's supermarket in a town of that county, defendant Gao bit police officer Wang's arm in order to prevent the investigation. The injury was identified as minor by a forensic doctor from the county's Public Security Bureau. Defendant Xie threatened the law enforcement officers with a wine bottle and a kitchen knife, obstructing them from performing their duties lawfully. These facts were not disputed by defendant Gao and his defender Guo, nor by defendant Xie during the court trial. The case is supported by evidence such as the written documentation of the case acceptance registration form, the command center's police dispatch record, a certificate of previous offenses inquiry, household registration certificates, a list of confiscated items, accounts of how the defendants were brought to justice, situation explanations, testimonies from witnesses Xu, Ma, Jin, and others, a forensic identification report, on-site investigation and inspection records, and a copy of the law enforcement recorder CD. The facts of this case are clear, and the evidence is indeed sufficient to establish the charges.


The prosecution alleges that on July 28, 2015, at about 19:00, the defendant Liu had an economic dispute with the victim Peng due to a credit card issue. Subsequently, Liu colluded with the defendants Ye, Shen, and Li in Room 3B1220 of the Mindong International building in Hanyang District, Wuhan City. Liu and Ye used violence and other means to restrict Peng's personal freedom in order to demand repayment of the debt. At approximately 23:00 on the same day, police officers arrived at the location, rescued the victim Peng, and arrested the defendants Liu, Ye, Shen, and Li.


The People's Procuratorate of Chuanshan District, a certain city, charged that the defendant Long was acquainted with the victim Qin. On June 9, 2020, at around 9:00 PM, Long was dining with friends at the "Jiangguaiguai" hot pot restaurant on ** Fang Street, Chuanshan District, a certain city. During this time, Qin and friends arrived at the restaurant. Long asked Qin to propose a toast, but Qin refused and left. At around 10:00 PM, Long and the defendant Xiao went to the "Duoweiyuan" restaurant on ** Fang Street, Chuanshan District, a certain city to continue dining, where they encountered Qin and friends dining at the nearby "Xiaohuangyu" barbecue and night beer shop. Long and Xiao confronted Qin, leading to an argument between the parties, and Long then punched Qin. During the fight, Xiao used a beer bottle and fists to strike Qin's head and face. According to the assessment, Qin sustained a nasal bone fracture, classified as a minor injury of the second degree. On June 16, 2020, Long and Xiao turned themselves in to the public security authorities.


The prosecution charges that at approximately 9 a.m. on December 6, 2014, the defendants Liu and Yu were on bus route 6 in Wanzhou District, a certain city, when Liu pickpocketed a wallet from the bag of passenger Liu Moumou and handed it to Yu. Both defendants got off at the former Si Police Station bus stop. Liu took more than 600 yuan in cash from the wallet and then discarded it. According to the appraisal by the Wanzhou District Price Certification Center of a certain city, the stolen wallet and its contents were valued at a total of 67 yuan. It was further found that after the incident, the police recovered the stolen wallet and its contents. A relative of defendant Liu compensated the victim Liu Moumou with 620 yuan in cash, and received his understanding. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Liu and Yu during the court hearing, and were substantiated by documentary evidence such as the case registration form, photos from the scene identification, video screenshots, lists of seized and returned items, arrest details, criminal judgment and release certificates, household registration certificates, the statement of the victim Liu Moumou, the confessions of defendants Liu and Yu, surveillance video, and the Wanzhou Price Appraisal Opinion No. (2014) 439 from the Wanzhou District Price Certification Center of a certain city, sufficient to confirm the charge.


Upon examination, it has been found that in August 2016, defendants Sun, Wang, and Dong entered the warehouse of a certain company five times by methods such as climbing through windows and stole 667 compressors stored in the warehouse. According to an appraisal, the total value of these compressors was 169,031 RMB. After the incident, the compressors involved in the case were lawfully seized by the public security organ. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Sun, Wang, and Dong during the court trial, and are corroborated by evidence including the report records and theft reports from witnesses Miao and Wu, detailed production cost of the compressors involved, on-site inspection records, search records, identification records, price appraisal conclusion, administrative penalty decisions, seizure decisions, seizure lists, on-site records, and photos, which are sufficient for confirmation.


A local people's procuratorate accused: At approximately 22:00 on June 8, 2015, at the former deer farm yard in Shangyu Village, Xiongguantun Town, Tieling County, the defendant Xu had a dispute with Peng over trivial matters and became discontent. As a result, he gathered the defendants Guo, Wang, Ma, E, and others to lure Peng back to the deer farm yard under the pretense of discussing the matter. During Xu's conversation with Peng, the defendant Guo injured Peng with a wooden stick. Defendants Wang, Ma, and E chased Zhu, who had come with Peng, with wooden sticks but were unsuccessful. E then returned and used a wooden stick to vandalize the van with license plate number Liao M****5 driven by Peng. According to the forensic evaluation, Peng sustained minor injuries of the second degree, and the damaged van had a loss valued at 900 yuan. After the incident, the defendants Guo, E, and Wang voluntarily surrendered, and the civil damages have been compensated. The prosecution submitted evidence to prove the charges, including the case source, the arrest process, statements of voluntary surrender, household registration information, a settlement agreement, explanatory notes, a forensic evaluation report on the human body injuries, an appraisal conclusion on the repair cost, photos of the damaged vehicle, testimonies from witnesses Zhu, Shao, Li, and others, the victim Peng’s statement, and the confessions of defendants Xu, Guo, E, Ma, and Wang.


According to the prosecution, on the afternoon of January 25, 2016, the defendants Diao and Xue took advantage of the opportunity to steal 2,400 RMB in cash from the victim, Ren, at the HLA clothing store located at 257 National Day Road, Yizheng City. Among them, the defendant Xue was responsible for keeping watch. After the incident, the defendants Diao and Xue truthfully confessed to their criminal activities. The facts mentioned above were not disputed by the defendants Diao and Xue during the court hearing. Additionally, these facts are substantiated by the victim Ren's statement, recognition records, incident report, criminal judgment, and household registration certificates. This is sufficient for conviction.


The prosecution charges, which this court has reviewed and verified, state that at around 10 p.m. on August 2, 2016, defendants Liu and Shang were in the underground parking lot of Sijichun in Lanshan District, a certain city. Because a Bie branded car belonging to Wang A and a Mercedes-Benz car belonging to Wang B were parked in the aisle, blocking their parking space, and they were unable to contact the owners, defendant Liu drove defendant Shang's car to hit the front bumper of the Bie branded car. Subsequently, defendants Liu and Shang used pickaxe handles to smash the front and rear windshields and the left rearview mirror of the Mercedes-Benz car, as well as the front windshield and left rearview mirror of the Bie branded car, causing a total damage value of 26,256 yuan. After the incident, on August 6 and August 7, 2016, defendants Liu and Shang reached settlement agreements with the victims, Wang A and Wang B, compensating Wang A with 8,800 yuan for vehicle damages and Wang B with 50,000 yuan. Victims Wang A and Wang B expressed their understanding. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Shang and Liu during the court hearing and were corroborated by the statements of victims Wang A and Wang B, expert opinions, the arrest process, residence verification, and other related documentary evidence, which are sufficient to confirm these facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain location charges that on June 23, 2008, the defendants Zheng and Ma allowed Liu, Shi, and others to engage in prostitution three times in the hair salon they operated located on Nanfeng North Road, Nanfeng Street, in the county. After the crime was discovered, defendant Zheng turned himself in to the public security authorities on December 27, 2012, and defendant Ma did so on February 17, 2013. The defendants Zheng and Ma do not dispute the above facts during the trial, and there is sufficient evidence to establish the facts, including testimonies from witnesses Liu, Shi, Xie, Ying, and Hua, identification records, the circumstances of the case, and household registration certificates.


The prosecution alleges that between July 2013 and July 2014, defendant Liu, knowing that sodium nitrite is harmful to human health, used sodium nitrite purchased by defendant Ren to marinate dog meat under Ren's instructions. During this period, defendant Liu sold the marinated dog meat at the "Wuyang Residence" dog meat shop on a certain road in a certain district of a certain city and at a certain market. Defendant Ren sold the marinated dog meat near a residential area in a certain district of a certain city. On July 28, 2014, at around 16:00, defendant Liu was caught by police while selling the marinated dog meat at a certain market in a certain district of a certain city. Testing revealed that the dog meat marinated by defendant Liu contained 67.1mg/kg of nitrites. On July 29, 2014, defendant Ren voluntarily surrendered to the police and truthfully confessed the aforementioned criminal facts. Further investigation found that after defendant Liu was brought to justice, he truthfully confessed the criminal facts. Defendant Liu and Ren raised no objections to the above facts during the trial, and these facts are substantiated by testimonies from witnesses Zhang, Yang, Shi, and others; business licenses of individual businesses; on-site detection records, search records, and seizure lists made by the public security bureau of a certain district in a certain city; inspection reports issued by a municipal product quality supervision and inspection center; household registration certifi


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charged that at approximately 5:00 PM on June 1, 2015, the defendants, Meng and Yue, were having a meal and drinking at the Jianghaifu Restaurant on Zhanghong Street. During this time, both rushed to the bar counter to pay the bill. Due to excessive drinking, Meng was unsteady and bumped into Pan Mofeng and others who were dining at Table 1 near the bar counter. Subsequently, Yue and Meng used objects like bottles, tables and chairs, and a water heater to smash the restaurant and assaulted Pan Mofeng, Pan Mozhang, and Pan Mohong, causing injuries of varying degrees to the three individuals. After an assessment by the Judicial Appraisal Center of Xunyi County Public Security Bureau, it was determined that Pan Mofeng's injuries were classified as minor injuries of the second degree, Pan Mozhang's injuries were classified as minor, and Pan Mohong waived the forensic appraisal.


The People's Procuratorate of Kecheng District, a city, charged that on May 10, 2012, the defendants Yu and Chen, together with Wang A (handled in a separate case), traveled from a city to downtown of a city, conspiring to commit theft. Later, the three went to the residence of the victim, Wang, located at Building 9, Unit 2, Room 401, Lujia Lane, downtown a city. Defendants Yu and Chen kept watch at the stairway entrance while Wang A entered the premises to carry out the theft, stealing items including a laptop, mobile phone, Chunghwa cigarettes, jewelry, jade ornaments, various commemorative notes and coins, stamps, and two gold necklaces. The three then transported the stolen items back to a certain place to sell and shared illicit gains of over 4,000 yuan. According to an appraisal, the stolen HP laptop and Huawei mobile phone were valued at a total of 1,480 yuan; the two cartons of hard pack Chunghwa cigarettes were valued at 720 yuan. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the two defendants during the trial, and were supported by the household registration certificates of the two defendants; the statement of the victim, Wang; the testimony of the witness, Zhao; the confession of the co-offender Wang A; identification records, photo lists of people identified, and identity description of the person identified; photos of the crime scene identified by defendants Yu and Chen; Appraisal Conclusion No. 164 (2012) by a city's price certification center, appraisal conclusion notification; cigarette price verification provided by a city's company of Zhejiang Tobacco Company; apprehension process; list of seized items and documents, photos of the seized items; confessions of defendants Yu and Chen, among other evidence, sufficient to establish the facts.


The prosecution charges that at around 1 AM on June 5, 2015, the defendants Du and Qin, together with Li (handled in a separate case), went to the family housing compound of the Agricultural Bureau on Changqing Road in a certain city. Defendant Qin acted as a lookout while defendants Du and Li used a prying tool to force open the lock of a storage room door, stealing a set of tools including a flashlight drill, grinder, and electric hammer belonging to the victim Han. As they passed under Building No. 3 of the same complex, they also stole a Yadea brand electric scooter from the victim Fu that was parked there. Later, the three arrived in an alley to the south of the city's emergency center and stole another Yadea brand electric scooter parked at the doorway of the victim Liu's home. According to the appraisal by the price evaluation department, the total value of the stolen items was 3,090 yuan. Around 1 PM on June 5, 2015, defendants Du and Qin were arrested by police officers in a village of a certain town in the city, and the stolen property was seized by the police and returned to the victims. The facts ascertained during the investigation were largely consistent with the charges. The aforementioned facts were not contested by defendants Du and Qin during the court hearing and were confirmed by the statements of the victims Han, Liu, and Fu, as well as by the recognition records, price appraisal conclusion of the involved items, seizure list, return list, household registration certificate, criminal judgment, arrest records, and procedural statements, which were sufficient to establish the case.


The prosecution alleges that in August 2017, defendants Hu and Zheng provided the household registration book of the victim Hu's wife, Yang, at a district's household registration center, and falsely claimed that Zheng was Yang. They obtained an ID card with Zheng's photo and Yang's information. In August 2018, Hu and Zheng used the above ID card at a district's disabled persons' federation to obtain a disability certificate with Zheng's photo and Yang's information for Zheng. Subsequently, Hu instructed Zheng to apply for a Construction Bank card. In April 2019, Zheng reported the loss of the victim Yang's former Construction Bank card at a branch on Wulanmulun Street of China Construction Bank, and used the above ID card to apply for a new Construction Bank card under Yang's name. The balance from the original Yang's Construction Bank card was automatically transferred to the new Yang's Construction Bank card obtained by Zheng. On October 26, 2019, Zheng withdrew 100 yuan from the Yang's Construction Bank card he obtained. Hu also instructed Zheng to use Yang's name for activities in a certain location, and during the epidemic period from February to March 2020, Zheng used Yang's name to enter and exit a residential community. Defendants Hu and Zheng were brought to justice after being summoned by the police by phone. According to these facts,


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district charges that the debtor, Liao, resides in a certain district. Due to being unable to repay multiple debts, Liao dared not live in the residence, which was occupied by his mother, the victim Xia. Defendants Xie, Liu, Long, Xu, Lin, Pang, Teng, and Cai forcibly entered the residence to demand repayment from Liao and refused to leave, seriously affecting Xia's normal life and residential tranquility.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province charged: Apple Inc. (English name: APPLE INC.) registered the trademarks "iphone", "APPLE", and "IPHONE" with numbers 5621463, 6281188, 6151368, approved for use on goods in categories 9 and 16 such as computers, telephones, and earphones; the validity periods are from April 14, 2010, to April 13, 2020, from September 7, 2010, to September 6, 2020, and from February 7, 2010, to February 6, 2020, respectively. Starting in October 2014, the defendants Zhang and Wu were employed by Qiu (handled in a separate case) as accomplices, using a house on Tianhe Road in a certain district of this city as their base, to produce and sell counterfeit Apple mobile phones without authorization, in order to gain illegal profits. Zhang and Wu were responsible for refurbishing, packaging, processing, labeling, and delivering the goods. On May 26, 2015, the police apprehended the defendants Zhang and Wu at the location, and seized on site 47 Apple 4S phones, 46 Apple 5 phones, 7 Apple 5S phones, and a batch of accessories (after appraisal, they were all found to be goods with counterfeit registered trademarks; after evaluation, their total value was 91,770 RMB). Additionally, the police seized a batch of sales documents at the location, and after auditing, it was found that a total of 1,335 counterfeit Apple phones had been sold, with a total sales amount of 1,750,312 RMB.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charged that on March 30, 2011, the defendant Wang, unable to obtain a loan from the credit union in Xiping Township, Weishan County, sought help from his friend Wei to use Wei's identity to apply for a loan. Wei agreed and assisted Wang, applying for a loan of 200,000 yuan from the Xiping Township Credit Union under the pretense of purchasing steel materials, with a loan period of two years. The funds were used by Wang. After the loan expired on March 29, 2013, the Xiping Credit Union made multiple demands for repayment, which remained unpaid. After the case was discovered, Wei voluntarily repaid the loan of 200,000 yuan to the Xiping Credit Union on August 6, 2014. The defendants raised no objections to the above facts during the trial, which were confirmed by the testimonies of witnesses Liu, Tang, and others, as well as the loan contract, case explanation, repayment proof, and other evidence sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city charges that the defendant Ding, in collusion with the defendant Gai, entered the construction site of Longyuan Construction on Airport Road in Luzhi Town, a certain district of a certain city, by climbing over the wall in the early morning of February 28, 2015, and stole 687 iron fasteners belonging to Longyuan Construction Group Co., Ltd., valued at 2,267 RMB. After their arrest, defendants Ding and Gai both truthfully confessed to the above facts. Following the resolution of the case, the public security authorities recovered all the stolen goods and have returned them to the victimized unit. The public security authorities seized part of the proceeds from the sale of the stolen iron fasteners, amounting to 540 RMB, from the defendant Gai. During the court proceedings, defendants Ding and Gai raised no objections to the above facts. The facts are corroborated by the statement records of Ke, an employee of the victimized unit, the testimony records of witnesses Wu and Fan, identification records, on-site identification records, site photographs, photos of the stolen goods, lists of seizures and returns, case-solving reports, arrest reports, criminal judgment documents, administrative penalty decision documents, release certificates, and household registration certificates, which are sufficient for conviction.


The People's Procuratorate of Longgang District in a certain city charges: 1. On October 5, 2013, at around 8:00 PM, the defendants Lu and Wang, together with Huang, Li, Wu (all prosecuted in separate cases), and "Xiao Wu" (handled in a separate case), assaulted and threatened the victim Li at the riverside located 30 meters south of Baoda Technology Factory in a certain village of a certain district in a certain city, robbing him of 1,000 yuan in cash; 2. On October 7, 2013, at around 9:00 PM, the defendants Lu and Wang, together with Huang, Li, Wu, and "Xiao Wu," forcibly dragged the victim Huang A to the riverside on the pedestrian path north of the Sha Lake Second Bridge in the Shahu Community of a certain district in a certain city, assaulted him, and robbed him of over 100 yuan in cash and a mobile phone (appraised at a value of 272 yuan).