The People's Procuratorate of a certain city charges: 1. Around 12:00 on December 11, 2013, the defendants Xiao and Liu, after planning, proceeded with Xiao driving a black motorcycle carrying Liu to the section in front of the "Jiayi" shoe material factory at Sunshine Community, Qingyang Street, in a certain city. Taking advantage of the unpreparedness of the victim Zeng, they snatched a “Samsung” GT-7100 mobile phone valued at 1,924 RMB from Zeng. 2. Around 12:00 on December 19, 2013, the defendants Xiao and Liu, after planning, proceeded with Xiao driving a black motorcycle carrying Liu to the section in front of the "Haolai Chuan" restaurant at Peace Road, Qinghua Community, Qingyang Street, in a certain city. Taking advantage of the unpreparedness of the victim Li, they snatched an “Apple” iPhone 5 mobile phone valued at 3,370 RMB from Li. Around 10:00 on December 20, 2013, the defendants Xiao and Liu were apprehended at the Yingbin Hotel, Xibian Village, in a certain town. After the incident, the “Samsung” GT-7100 mobile phone was seized from Liu and returned to the victim Zeng; cash amounting to 2,100 RMB was seized from Liu, and cash amounting to 800 RMB was seized from Xiao, both returned to the victim Li. In summary, the defendants Xiao and Liu jointly committed 2 counts of snatching, involving stolen goods valued at 5,294 RMB. These facts were not disputed by the defendants Xiao and Liu during the trial, and are substantiated by the statements of the victims Zeng and Li, the seizure decision documents, seizure records, inventory of seized items, property storage inventory, lists of seized and returned items, household registration certificates, basic information sheets of permanent residents, criminal judgment No. 255 of 2008 Hanxingchuzi, criminal judgment No. 173 of 2011 Jinxingchuzi, criminal ruling No. 239 of 2011 Quanxingzhongzi, criminal files, apprehension records provided by public security organs, incident investigation records, an appraisal opinion on the price of the mobile phones, site identification records, and photographs, which are sufficient to establish the charge.


According to the prosecution's charges, in January 2014, the defendants Pan and Zhang, in a certain town, committed three acts of theft, either separately or together, by scaling walls to enter premises, stealing a total of two electric bicycles with the stolen goods valued at 3,085 RMB. Among these, defendant Pan committed three thefts, while defendant Zhang committed two. The specific criminal facts are stated as follows: 1. At around 2 a.m. on January 19, 2014, defendant Pan went to the home of victim Mo at a certain village, certain town, and fled the scene after being discovered by the victim while attempting to steal items. 2. At around 2 a.m. on January 21, 2014, defendants Pan and Zhang went to the home of victim Wang at a certain village, certain town, and stole a Giant brand electric bicycle, with the stolen goods valued at 1,600 RMB. 3. At around 2 a.m. on January 23, 2014, defendants Pan and Zhang went to the home of victim Xu at a certain community, certain town, and stole a Lvyuan brand electric bicycle, with the stolen goods valued at 1,485 RMB. This case came to light after the victims reported it, and the public security authorities conducted an investigation. After being apprehended, defendants Pan and Zhang truthfully confessed to their criminal acts. Following the incident, the public security authorities seized the stolen goods involved in the case and returned them to the victims. The above facts were not disputed by defendants Pan and Zhang during the court proceedings and are corroborated by the statements of victims Mo, Wang, and Xu; the confessions of defendants Pan and Zhang; the written records of identification and location of the theft scenes; documentary evidence such as sales receipts and purchase invoices; a list of collected evidence; a price appraisal certificate; a list of items returned; case registration form; narrative of the incident and capture; re-education through labor decision; household registration certificates; and other evidence, which are sufficient to establish the case.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain city in Jiangsu Province charged, and this court has verified through investigation, that the defendants Hu and Xu jointly operated the XX Wholesale Department at Building XX, Victory New Village, North City, in a certain city. Since April 8, 2014, after their tobacco retail license was revoked, defendants Hu and Xu illegally operated and sold tobacco products without obtaining a new tobacco retail license. On January 26, 2016, various cigarettes totaling 938 cartons were seized from this wholesale department by the Tobacco Monopoly Bureau of the city. According to appraisal, the confiscated cigarettes were valued at a total of 158,215 RMB. This court also verified that on April 12, 2016, after being notified by phone by the public security authorities, defendants Hu and Xu voluntarily turned themselves in and truthfully confessed their criminal activities. After the incident, 938 cartons of cigarettes were seized by the Tobacco Monopoly Bureau of the city. Defendants Hu and Xu raised no objections to these facts during the court hearing. The facts are supported by the cigarette identification and inspection report, seizure decision documents, seizure inventory list, price appraisal certificate, case transfer documents, case report, prior registration and preservation approval documents, city Tobacco Monopoly Bureau inquiry records, inspection records, list of sampled and collected evidence, proof issued by the city's Tobacco Monopoly Bureau showing that defendants Hu and Xu did not have a tobacco retail license, the city's Tobacco Monopoly Bureau license approval form, photographs of the cigarettes, the process of apprehension, basic resident information, and other evidence. The evidence is sufficient to establish the facts.


After the trial, it was found that around 10 p.m. on November 30, 2016, defendants Guo and Zhao were dining at the Yaomei Spicy Restaurant on Dam No. 2 Road in Danjiangkou City. They had a verbal conflict with the victim, Wang Yi, who was dining at the same table, which led to a disagreement. Guo and Zhao, feeling dissatisfied, splashed liquor on Wang Yi and threw utensils at him. Subsequently, they struck Wang Yi with beer bottles filled with beer, causing injuries to his head and face. According to a forensic evaluation, the facial injuries of the victim Wang Yi were classified as minor injury level two, and the scalp lacerations as slight injuries. During the trial, mediated by the court, defendants Guo and Zhao and victim Wang Yi reached a compensation agreement regarding the civil compensation part: Defendants Guo and Zhao agreed to pay a one-time compensation of 35,000 yuan to Wang Yi for all economic losses incurred due to the injuries (excluding the 5,000 yuan already paid for medical expenses, and the compensation has been fulfilled). Once this amount is paid, the victim Wang Yi shall not seek any further compensation from defendants Guo and Zhao for any costs incurred from these injuries. Wang Yi provided a written statement forgiving the intentional harm caused by defendants Guo and Zhao and requested that the judicial authorities show leniency in their sentencing. The facts mentioned above were not disputed by defendants Guo and Zhao during the trial, and were corroborated by the testimony of the victim Wang Yi, testimonies from witnesses Li and Wang Jia, diagrams and photos from the crime scene, the forensic injury assessment report from Danjiangkou Siyuan Forensic Judicial Identification Institute, audiovisual materials, the capture process, household registration proof, and the compensation agreement, receipt, and letter of forgiveness, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


After the trial, it was found that on May 18, 2016, at around 7 p.m., the defendants Yang, Liu, and Song were dining at a certain restaurant in a district of a certain city. Around 10 p.m. on the same day, Yang had a dispute with a staff member of the restaurant, Wang. Subsequently, the restaurant's lobby manager, Zhu, called the police, and officers Xu and Qin from the Jiulongyuan Police Station of the Jiulongpo District Sub-bureau of the Municipal Public Security Bureau responded to the scene to perform their duties in accordance with the law. During their duty execution, Yang, Liu, Song, and others caused a disturbance, surrounded, insulted, and intimidated Officer Xu, knocking him to the ground and continuing to assault him violently. Yang and Liu held onto Xu's left lower leg, repeatedly grabbing Xu's lower body and other parts, while Song slapped Xu on the back, resulting in multiple soft tissue injuries to Xu. Yang and Liu falsely claimed "the police are beating people," causing confusion and attracting onlookers unaware of the truth. Song repeatedly intimidated, threatened, and insulted Xu, causing a negative social impact. Yang, Liu, Song, and others were subsequently apprehended by officers who arrived on the scene for support. An assessment determined that Xu's injuries were minor. After the incident, the defendants Yang, Liu, and Song apologized to Xu, and Xu expressed forgiveness for their actions. The above facts were acknowledged by the defendants Yang, Liu, and Song during the court trial, and were corroborated by evidence including the case registration form, the decision to file a case, the circumstances of their arrest, detention certificate, bail decision, household information, administrative penalty decision by the public security bureau, 110 call records, police dispatch details, recognition transcripts, injury photos, medical records, forensic appraisal reports, video materials, letters of understanding, police identification, and testimonies from witnesses Xu, Qin, Zhu, Wang1, Wang2, Yao, as well as confessions from the defendants Yang, Liu, and Song, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in Wuxi City accuses: From January to December 2020, the defendant Cheng established studios at Room 1009, Fortune Center, and apartments 2216 and 1909 in B6, Wanda Plaza in a certain city. He employed defendants Wei, Sa, and others (all handled in separate cases) as salespersons. Defendant Cheng organized and directed the aforementioned salespersons to impersonate staff from Artron Art Network, using pre-designed scripts through chat applications like WeChat to contact victims holding collectibles. They fabricated the fact that there were company experts providing free appraisals and used inflated evaluation prices of collectibles to gain the victims' trust. Subsequently, the salespersons fraudulently charged "auction listing fees" of 1500 RMB per item from the victims under the pretense of "helping clients auction collectibles online." Once clients paid the fees, Defendant Cheng uploaded images of their collectibles to an online auction platform that lacked transaction capabilities for "auctioning" and then misappropriated the "auction fees" under the guise of failed auctions. Using the aforementioned method, Defendant Cheng and others swindled over 800 victims like Jin from a certain district in the city, totaling over 1,806,000 RMB. Of this amount, Defendant Cheng was involved in over 1,806,000 RMB; Defendant Wei was involved in over 99,000 RMB; Defendant Sa was involved in over 96,000 RMB. On December 18, 2020, Defendants Cheng, Wei, and Sa were apprehended by a certain agency in a certain district of a certain city. Subsequently, Defendants Wei and Sa truthfully confessed to the aforementioned criminal activities. After the case occurred, Defendant Wei returned 17,965 RMB; Defendant Sa returned 17,680 RMB of illicit money.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain city in Jiangsu Province charged that in late February 2015, the defendants Zhang and Zhou, along with others, went to the section of Suzhou Linglan Hygiene Products Co., Ltd. on a certain road in a town of the city, and to the north of the intersection of Longjiang Road and Xingang Road of a certain place, where they stole 236 meters and 240 meters of cable wire from roadside manhole covers. The total value of the items was 3,358 RMB.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charged that on the afternoon of April 11, 2014, defendant Zhang, believing that his wife, Xu, had been bullied by others, developed a desire for revenge. Together with defendant Chen, Xin, and Wang, they went to a game room operated by Lu A. After arriving at the game room, defendant Zhang threatened Gu Yi with a knife to hand over the person who had a conflict with Xu. When Lu came out of the room, Zhang demanded that he hand over the person, which led to a verbal altercation. Defendant Zhang then picked up a broom and damaged one side of a mahjong table in the game room. He subsequently moved forward to beat Lu, while defendant Chen and others used wooden sticks to strike Lu’s head. According to the forensic identification by the Binhai County Public Security Bureau, the damage to Lu's head was classified as minor injury. After the incident, defendant Zhang voluntarily surrendered to the public security organ on May 14, 2014; defendant Chen did the same on July 18, 2014, and truthfully confessed their crimes. These facts were not disputed by defendants Zhang and Chen during the trial and were confirmed by statements from the victim Lu, Gu Yi, testimonies from witnesses Xu, Fu, Gu Jia, among others, the criminal judgment (2011) Bin Xing Chu Zi No. 0018 from the People’s Court of Binhai County, the household registration certificate issued by the Binhai County Public Security Bureau, the case report, situation explanations, identification record, scene photos, and the forensic assessment of the degree of bodily injury, identification number (2014) 91 issued by Bin Gong (Bin) Jian (Injury). These pieces of evidence are sufficient to ascertain the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of Yuecheng District in a certain city charges: On the evening of October 19, 2012, at about 9 PM, the defendants Jiang and Cheng, after prior agreement, conspired to go out and rob women walking alone of their money. The defendants Jiang and Cheng rode together on an electric bicycle near the Customs on Shengli Road, in the district city, at places such as Jinle Palace Entertainment City, looking for and following targets, waiting for an opportunity to snatch money from women walking alone. However, because there were many people on the streets, they did not get a chance to act. At about 10 PM on the same night, the two defendants returned to their rental residence and conspired again, planning to use a knife to threaten their target and commit robbery, thus preparing tools for the crime, including a fruit knife, a steel knife, a screwdriver, and pliers. Around 1 AM the next day, the two defendants, carrying the aforementioned tools, looked for targets in multiple locations such as the night stalls in the eastern part of the district city and Changan Overpass, waiting to commit robbery. Until 2 AM, the defendants Jiang and Cheng were apprehended near the intersection of Xinjian Road and Shengli Road at the Power Building, by patrol officers from the public security bureau. The police confiscated the crime tools on the spot, including a steel knife, a fruit knife, a screwdriver, and pliers, one of each, from the two defendants. Upon identification: the steel knife confiscated from defendant Jiang was identified as a controlled knife; the fruit knife confiscated from defendant Cheng was not categorized as a controlled knife. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants Jiang and Cheng during the trial, and were corroborated by various evidence, including the testimony of witness Peng, the certificate identifying the controlled knife, the identification record and photographs, the list of seized items, pictures of the recovered crime tools, the account of the apprehension process, household registration certificates, and other evidence, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The prosecution charges: Defendants Xiao and Li drove a certain C××××× semi-trailer truck to carry out transportation business from a city’s surrounding areas to a certain place and back. Starting May 15, 2020, the defendants Xiao and Li concealed the true departure location and used short-distance transit cards to replace long-distance transit cards in order to evade highway tolls. On July 12, 2020, after Xiao and Li once again evaded tolls at the Hujiafang toll station on the highway, they were caught by municipal public security bureau police officers. According to statistics, defendants Xiao and Li evaded tolls 44 times, totaling 57,851 yuan. After the incident, Xiao and Li repaid the evaded tolls amounting to 57,851 yuan. The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the prosecution with the following evidence: 1. Transcript of extraction, seizure list; 2. Case registration form, payment details and evasion amount table, repayment toll invoices; 3. Testimony of witness Li; 4. Confessions and defenses of defendants Xiao and Li.


The People's Procuratorate of the Development Zone of a certain city charged: The victim Qiao, due to a loan, had an economic dispute with others. Wu (handled in a separate case), after failing to recover the debt from Qiao, gathered defendant Lan and Song (handled in a separate case) and others on the afternoon of October 30, 2015. Defendant Lan then gathered defendant Bao and others to a stainless steel market in the southern part of a new district in the original city. They used wooden sticks to smash the Volkswagen Touareg SUV with the license plate SuB××××× parked between buildings 12 and 13 in the market by victim Qiao. According to the appraisal, the cost of repairing the car was 17,898 RMB. On December 2, 2015, defendant Lan was caught by public security authorities in a certain city of a certain province while on his way to surrender himself. On December 24, 2015, defendant Bao was arrested by public security authorities in a certain city of a certain province. Both defendants truthfully confessed the aforementioned criminal facts.


Upon investigation, it was found that in November 2016, the defendants, Zhang and Lu, a married couple, due to their need for planting Panax notoginseng, repeatedly went to the "Po Bei Hou," "Long Shu Liang," and "Da Ma Li Shu" areas of a village in the Laohuilong village committee of a certain town in a certain city. They used a sickle and a machete to cut down 661 sections of collective forest trees. According to the appraisal by the Yunnan Yunlin Judicial Appraisal Center, the 661 sections of trees felled were considered saplings as their diameters at breast height were less than 5 cm. They were counted as 661 saplings, with the tree species being Cryptomeria, a commonly used timber tree species with no national or provincial key protection status. The above facts were not disputed by the defendants, Zhang and Lu, during the court trial. The evidence includes: one sickle, one machete; documentary evidence: the police registration form, decision to file a case, household registration certificate, certificate of previous convictions, apprehension record, and confiscation list; witness testimonies from Zhang1, Zhang2, Lu, Yang, Xiao, Ma; the statements and defenses of the defendants, Zhang and Lu; judicial appraisal report and notification; on-site inspection records and photos, identification records and photos, etc., all of which are sufficient to support the findings.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place accused: Defendant Xing harbored resentment towards Li Yi for competing with him over the waste recycling business at the Süxian County Lishi Power Plant, and thus intended to take revenge on Li Yi. Around 11 PM on August 12, 2012, Xing gathered defendant Jiang and Liu, Hu, Zhang Jia, Ma, Zhang Yi (all five have been sentenced) and others, drove to a village in Suixi Town, Suixi County, and mistakenly identified victim Li Bing as Li Yi. They entered Li Bing's house by breaking the door. Jiang, Liu, Zhang Jia, Hu, Ma, Zhang Yi, and others used iron rods to damage Li Bing's Hyundai Accent car and injured Li Bing and Li Ding. According to the assessment, Li Bing's injuries were classified as serious, while Li Ding's injuries were classified as minor. Subsequently, Xing, Jiang, and others reached a settlement agreement with victims Li Bing and Li Ding regarding civil compensation. In response to the above accusations, the prosecution provided evidence such as the confessions of the defendants, on-site investigation records, appraisal opinions, and witness testimonies. Accordingly,


Upon investigation, it was found that around 8:00 PM on October 1, 2014, defendants Wang and Hu, along with Zhou and Li (both of whom have been convicted), engaged in a dispute over trivial matters with Dai and others at the entrance of Zhengxing Snack Shop in Xintiandi Plaza, downtown. In a show of force, defendants Wang and Hu, among others, conspired and prepared tools, wearing masks and wielding weapons such as a Guan Yu knife, a dagger, and batons. They pursued and assaulted Dai, Zhang, Wei, and another person named Hou at the elevator entrance on the first floor of Xintiandi Media, resulting in injuries to the victim Hou. According to a forensic examination by the Wuxing District Sub-Bureau Forensic Identification Office of Huzhou Public Security Bureau, Hou's injuries were determined to reach the level of mild injury, second degree. After the incident, the defendants received the victim's forgiveness.

It was also found that on March 17, 2015, defendants Wang and Hu voluntarily surrendered to the Aishan Police Station. Wang and Hu did not object to these facts during the court hearing, and there is supporting evidence including: personal information records, evidence collection lists, criminal judgment documents, certificates of release after serving sentences, administrative penalty decisions, medical records, audiovisual material explanations, statements of understanding; accounts of the arrest process and situation descriptions provided by investigators in the public security organ; statements from the victim Hou; testimonies from witnesses Dai, Wei, Zhang, and two named Hou and Li; forensic report No. 117 (2014) issued by Wu concerning body injury assessment; on-site inspection records, sketches and photographs, identification records and photographs; video materials; and the confessions and defenses of defendants Wang, Hu, and co-defendants Zhou and Li, all of which are sufficient for substantiation.


The prosecution alleges: On March 17, 2017, at around 20:34, defendants Song and Liang, while shopping at a fruit supermarket on Chang'an Street in a certain city, collided with a friend of the victim Wang. Wang then broke two bottles of beer from the supermarket and used the broken beer bottles to injure Song and Liang. Subsequently, Song and Liang threw Wang to the ground and punched and kicked him. According to the assessment, Wang's bilateral nasal bones and maxillary frontal process fractures were classified as minor injuries of the second degree; his 9th and 10th left ribs fractures were classified as minor injuries of the second degree. After the incident, Song and Liang were summoned and brought to justice. Song and Liang each compensated Wang for various economic losses totaling 95,000 yuan.


The prosecution accuses: Around 1:40 am on October 25, 2019, defendants Chen and Ye were drinking with their friends, including Lin Mouhua, at the 1822 bar in Wanda Plaza, Zengcheng District, a certain city. During this time, Lin Mouhua had a conflict with the victim, He Mou1, and was kicked by He Mou1. After learning about the situation, defendants Chen and Ye found He Mou1, who was resting in the plaza, and assaulted him with their fists and feet. Victim Chen Mou1 was also injured during the intervention. According to the assessment, the injury level of victim He Mou1 was minor injury Level 1, and Chen Mou1 had a minor injury. On December 11, 2019, defendants Chen and Ye were arrested and brought to justice in a certain district of the city. It is considered that defendants Chen and Ye have confessed; with circumstances of admitting guilt and accepting punishment, it is suggested that they be sentenced to one year to one year and six months in prison. Defendants Chen and Ye have no objections to the facts, charges, and sentencing recommendations and have signed to confirm this, and they raised no objections during the trial. Both defense attorneys claim that the victim bears some responsibility for the occurrence of this case, and the defendants are first-time offenders and occasional offenders, have a good attitude towards confession, admitting guilt and accepting punishment, and hope the court will be lenient in sentencing Chen and Ye.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain Banner charges: At around 10 PM on August 10, 2018, herdsmen Da and Su, among others, from a certain place in a certain Banner, went to a barbecue restaurant operated by someone in a certain area to drink. During this time, defendant Da went to the private room of Tian and others to toast. At the table, Da became dissatisfied with Tian's statement that "I once took care of your father," and the two had an argument and engaged in a verbal and shoving altercation inside the barbecue restaurant. After being separated by Qing and others, Da returned to the barbecue restaurant to continue drinking. Defendant Su dragged Tian outside to the courtyard, pushed him down, and straddled Tian's abdomen, pressing down with his hands and punching Tian's chest several times before returning to the barbecue restaurant. Victim Tian lay on the ground and called the police station. After learning that victim Tian had called the police, defendant Da approached Tian, who was lying on the ground, and kicked and punched him. The day after the incident, Tian was admitted to the hospital for treatment. According to an assessment, the victim Tian suffered a tear to the right pectoralis major muscle, resulting in partial loss of function of the right shoulder joint, and this was classified as minor injury of the first degree. To prove the facts of the case, the public prosecution provided documentary evidence, witness testimonies, the victim's statement, confessions and defenses from the defendants, expert opinions, examination, inspection, identification, and investigation experiment records, among other evidence.


After trial, it was found that from June 2006 to April 2009, the defendants Guo and Zheng served as patrol officers at the Shiyan Police Station of the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau. They were responsible for patrolling and controlling the security of Baoshi South Road in the district under the jurisdiction of Shiyan Police Station, preventing and managing street crime, assisting police officers in cracking down on street violations and criminal activities, and helping police officers capture criminal suspects. On October 13, 2008, at around 1 PM, defendants Guo and Zheng were patrolling Baoshi South Road. The complainant, Liao Jin, reported to Guo and Zheng near the Shiyan Market that his money had been stolen and requested that they catch the thief. Upon receiving the report, Guo and Zheng went together to the rooftop of the Donghai Building in front of Shiyan Market to look for the suspect involved in the theft (later identified as "Ami Za"). After Guo and Zheng reached the rooftop, they found Ami Za hiding in a corner and proceeded to arrest and detain him. During questioning, Ami Za admitted to his recent theft and handed over 8,800 RMB in cash to Guo, requesting Guo to accept the money and release him. After taking the money from Ami Za, Guo and Zheng left together, intentionally leaving Ami Za on the rooftop of the Donghai Building. Later, when the public security authorities pursued the whereabouts of the stolen funds, Guo learned of this and fled his position. On October 28, 2011, defendant Guo surrendered at the Guanlan Police Station and was sent to the Shiyan Police Station, where he compensated the victim with 8,800 RMB. The defendants Guo and Zheng did not object to the above facts during the trial, and they were confirmed by relevant evidence, which is sufficient for establishment.


The prosecution alleges: On November 9, 2020, defendants Cheng and Huang conspired in advance to steal cable wires located in the plant area of Green Eco-Manufacture (Jiangsu) Cobalt Industry Co., Ltd., which belong to Taizhou Zhongzhou Electric Power Installation Engineering Co., Ltd. Later, defendants Cheng and Huang went to a scrap recycling station operated by defendants Zhou and Lu on Shugong Road in a certain town in the city. After discussing with Zhou and Lu, defendants Cheng and Huang carried out the theft, while defendants Zhou and Lu provided an electric tricycle and took charge of purchasing the stolen goods. At around 19:00 on the same day, defendants Cheng and Huang went to the south side of the fence of Green Eco-Manufacture (Jiangsu) Cobalt Industry Co., Ltd. Defendant Huang climbed over the fence to enter the plant area and used scissors to cut and steal cables of model ZC-YJV-0.6/1KV3*240+2*120 and ZC-YJV-0.6/1KV3*120+2*70, while defendant Cheng kept watch outside the fence. They then went to defendants Zhou and Lu, where Cheng, Huang, and Zhou stripped and weighed the stolen cables, and defendants Zhou and Lu purchased the stolen cables for 5040 RMB, later selling them to others for 5280 RMB. According to price assessment, the stolen cables were valued at 6725 RMB. After the incident, defendant Cheng voluntarily surrendered and truthfully confessed his crime; defendants Huang, Zhou, and Lu truthfully confessed their crimes after being apprehended.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain city charges that at the end of November 2019, defendants Yu, Ruan, and Lin discussed finding farmland in a town of a certain city to extract sand for profit. They divided responsibilities with Yu in charge of organizing extraction, transportation, and sales, Ruan in charge of providing information and security, and Lin responsible for on-site management, providing technical support, and partial funding. From December 7 to 16, 2019, the three defendants, without obtaining a mining license in accordance with the law, employed excavators, loaders, and trucks under the pretense of land remediation to illegally extract approximately 3,770 tons of Field A from farmland contracted by villagers Dai and relatives (located in a certain village, a certain town, a certain city**), by extracting at night and refilling with soil during the day. During this period, Yu sold about 1,112 tons to Li and Tian, gaining 85,000 RMB. The unsold portion of Field A was used to offset excavator costs, and some was left at a stockpile (located in a certain village, a certain town, a certain city** on Chen Xiaoxiao's farmland). According to valuation by a price appraisal agency, the price of raw ore of Field A left in the stockpile was 64 RMB per ton. Upon investigation, the value of Field A extracted by the three defendants in this case was 278,000 RMB (including 85,000 RMB from the sale, 107,000 RMB from Field A confiscated and auctioned, and 86,000 RMB from Field A used to offset debts and wasted as foundational material at stockpiles). After the crime, defendant Ruan surrendered to the Bailizhou Police Station of the city's Public Security Bureau on December 27, 2019. Defendant Lin was captured by the Majadian Police Station of the city's Public Security Bureau on the same day. Defendant Yu absconded but later surrendered to the Bailizhou Police Station of the city's Public Security Bureau on April 7, 2020. The allegations of the aforementioned criminal facts are substantiated by the prosecution with evidence including photographs of physical evidence, documentary evidence, witness testimony, and the confessions and defenses of the defendants.


Upon investigation, it was found that around 5 PM on March 7, 2014, the defendants Huang and Wen acted in collusion and with a division of labor. They went to the entrance of the Xinning Hotel on Wangcheng Avenue in the suburbs of a certain city. Defendant Wen forcibly removed the electrical wires while defendant Huang kept watch, and they stole a Honda men's two-wheeled motorcycle (frame number: LALPCJ7D2D3088254, engine number: D3050229, appraised value: RMB 5960) parked there by the victim, Li. After the crime, the motorcycle was retrieved and returned to the victim. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Huang and Wen during the trial. Additionally, the prosecuting authority provided, and this court verified during the trial, supporting evidence, including the victim Li's police report, the vehicle sales invoice, vehicle information inquiry form, appraisal report of the involved item, records of on-site investigation and inspection, schematic diagrams and photographs of the scene, lists of seized and returned items, identification records and photographs in which defendants Huang and Wen identified each other, as well as records and photographs where defendants Huang and Wen pointed out the crime scene, the tools used, and the stolen motorcycle. Further corroborated by explanatory notes, the process of capture, and the defendants' household registration materials, there is sufficient evidence to confirm these facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in Zibo City charges: At around 1 AM on May 29, 2017, near a snack stall on the east side of the entrance to a hospital on Zhanbei Road in a certain district, the victim, Wen, had a verbal altercation and scuffle with the defendant, Tian, over trivial matters. Subsequently, the defendants Tian, Ju, and Pu assaulted Wen, causing injuries. Appraisal determined Wen's injuries to be of second-degree minor injuries. Upon investigation, it was found that the criminal facts charged by the People's Procuratorate of a certain district in Zibo City were true. It was also found that this case was reported by the victim Wen. The defendants Tian, Ju, and Pu all voluntarily surrendered and truthfully confessed to the criminal facts after being brought to justice. During the investigation stage, the defendants Tian, Ju, and Pu compensated the victim Wen for all losses, and all received the victim Wen's understanding. The above facts were not disputed by the defendants Tian, Ju, and Pu during the trial, and were confirmed by evidence such as case explanations and other documentary evidence, witness testimonies, the victim's statement, appraisal opinions, identification records, and defendants' confessions, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place accused that in June 2011, Witness One, a villager from the fourth group of a certain village in Gucheng County Town, undertook the project of paving the road surface for the third group of the village. In mid-July, defendants Gan, Jiang, and Yang approached Witness One, asking him to either withdraw from the project or to jointly undertake the project. Witness One did not agree and continued the construction. Around 8 p.m. on July 19, defendants Jiang, Gan, and Yang went to the construction site of Witness One and used a pickaxe and hammer to smash the cement pool and disrupt the set steel formwork. Several days later, defendants Jiang, Gan, and Yang called Witness One to Yang's house and told him: "If you want to continue the construction without obstruction, give us each 10,000 yuan." Out of fear, Witness One agreed to pay each of them 8,000 yuan, with an upfront payment of 5,000 yuan and the remaining 3,000 yuan to be paid after the completion of the project. Witness One subsequently paid each of defendants Jiang, Gan, and Yang 5,000 yuan in cash. After the completion of the road surfacing on November 20, Yang approached Witness One to demand the remaining cash, at which point Witness One reported the matter to the public security authorities.


The prosecution alleges that from early 2012 to early June 2013, defendants Zhao and Xiao discussed having defendant Xiao provide a "Fire Butterfly" slot machine to be placed in defendant Zhao's "Yangyang" supermarket located in a certain village of the county for gamblers to use for gambling. They agreed to split the profits equally. On the evening of June 8, 2013, the machine was discovered and seized by the public security authorities during operations. Upon examination, it was confirmed that the seized "Fire Butterfly" machine had gambling functions. During the aforementioned period, the machine illegally gained over 12,000 yuan in profits, with each defendant, Zhao and Xiao, receiving over 6,000 yuan. On the evening of June 8, 2013, defendant Zhao was summoned to the scene by public security officers. On the evening of June 27, 2013, defendant Xiao was arrested and brought to justice by public security officers in the central district of a certain city. After the incident, defendant Zhao returned 8,000 yuan to the public security authorities. During the trial, defendant Xiao returned 6,000 yuan. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Zhao and Xiao during the trial, and were corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses Huang A and Huang B, recorded during the trial, inspection records, relevant identification records, expert opinion on the electronic gaming facilities, seizure decision documents, inventory lists submitted with the case, photographs, explanatory notes, household registration certificates, and other evidence, sufficient to substantiate these claims.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city of a certain province charges: On July 27, 2014, at approximately 20:00, the defendants Yang and Gong, after premeditation, went to the vicinity of Jazz Fenghua Residential Area on Hongxing Road in a certain district of a certain city. Defendant Gong assisted by riding a motorcycle nearby, while defendant Yang took the opportunity to snatch a gold pendant worth 4,134 yuan and weighing approximately 13 grams from the victim, Wu, when Wu was walking at that location. The loot was later sold at "Shundang Pawnshop" in a certain district, fetching 3,120 yuan. After the crime, Defendant Gong's family members returned 3,180 yuan of the stolen money, which has been handed back to the victim. Furthermore, it was discovered that after the crime, the 3,120 yuan returned by "Shundang Pawnshop" was collected by the victim, Wu. The facts mentioned above were not disputed by the defendants Yang and Gong during the court trial. The evidence, including documentary evidence such as household registration proof, arrest process, the criminal judgment No. 62 (2011) of the primary criminal case from the People's Court of Zhongfang County, a release certificate, an administrative punishment decision by the Hecheng Branch of a city's Public Security Bureau, a seizure decision, a list of seized items and documents, a list of returned items and documents, receipts, a letter of understanding, an explanatory note, the testimony of witness Zou, the statement of victim Wu, the confessions and defenses of defendants Yang and Gong, as well as recognition records, extraction records, identification records, on-site investigation records, on-site plan sketches, and photographs, are sufficient to establish the case.


The prosecution charges: On January 27, 2015, at approximately 3:00 PM, the defendant Li was driving a car with license plate number 鄂A×××××, carrying defendants Hu, Wang, as well as Wang A and Li A (both handled in separate cases) near the Luoma Spring Shopping Center in a certain development zone in a certain district of a city. They encountered Tao, who suddenly braked his car with license plate number 鄂A××××× in front of them. Dissatisfied, Li chased Tao and forced him to stop in the courtyard of the management committee of the development zone in the district. Defendant Li instructed defendants Hu, Wang, and others to use pickaxe handles to smash the right rear window, the left front fender, the left roof beam, and other parts of Tao's car with license plate number 鄂A×××××. According to an appraisal, the value of the damaged items was 3,191 RMB. On February 3, 2015, at about 11:00 AM, defendants Li and Hu were arrested by the police while handling household registration at the district police station of a certain city. On March 24, 2015, at approximately 11:00 AM, defendant Wang turned himself in to the public security organs. After the incident, defendants Li, Hu, and Wang compensated Tao with 30,000 RMB and received his forgiveness.


Based on the trial, it was found that the defendants, Jin and Zhang, were friends; neither of the defendants knew the victim, Zhang1. On the evening of August 9, 2020, the defendants Jin and Zhang were drinking at the night market near the No. 9 Middle School in a certain city’s Horqin District. At around 12:30 a.m. the following day, the two defendants went to a noodle restaurant on Ping'an Road in Horqin District to eat. During Zhang's ordering, defendant Jin got into a verbal altercation with the victim Zhang1, who was dining at the same restaurant, due to verbal provocation. Zhang1 struck defendant Jin with a beer bottle, leading to a scuffle. Defendant Zhang joined in the scuffle upon seeing this. The two defendants used beer bottles and wooden stools to assault the victim Zhang1 and the others dining at the same table, Bao and Liu. After the restaurant staff called the police, the public security authorities summoned the two defendants to the scene of the incident. It was diagnosed that the victim Zhang1 had fractures in the 4th to 8th ribs on the left side; Liu had a laceration on the skin of the left hand. An appraisal determined that the victim Zhang1 sustained injuries to the chest and other areas, causing fractures in the 4th to 8th ribs on the left side, which was assessed as minor injury of the second degree. Furthermore, during the litigation process, the relatives of defendants Jin and Zhang reached a reconciliation agreement with the victim Zhang1, in which each defendant's relatives compensated Zhang1 for economic losses of 30,000 RMB, totaling 60,000 RMB, which has been fully paid. The victim Zhang1 expressed understanding toward the two defendants. The two defendants had no objection to the criminal facts, charges, and sentencing recommendations made by the public prosecution authority, nor did they have any objection during the trial proceedings, both signing and acknowledging the agreement. The evidence materials, including the report materials, victim statements, case registration form, decision to file a case, witness testimonies, medical diagnoses, injury photos, forensic appraisal, letter of understanding, receipt, household registration proof, arrest process, and the confessions of the two defendants, sufficiently substantiate the findings.


A certain city's People's Procuratorate charges: Around 9 a.m. on April 3, 2013, defendants Ge and Lu, after prior discussion and under the guise of collecting scrap materials, went to the home of the victim Fu at No. 248, Lingshanwu Village, Yingdianjie Town, a certain city. Lu pretended to negotiate prices with the victim Fu to distract him, while Ge took the opportunity to enter the bedroom and used a screwdriver to pry open a drawer, stealing 30,000 RMB from inside. After the crime, the 30,000 RMB of stolen money was returned to the victim, who forgave them. To prove the above charges, the prosecution submitted to the court the testimony of witness Yang, the arrest record, basic resident information, site photos and diagrams, the letter of forgiveness, receipt, identification records and photos, as well as the confessions and defenses of defendants Ge and Lu. It is believed that defendants Ge and Lu, with the intent of illegal possession, conspired to secretly steal another's property from their residence, which constitutes a substantial amount, and should therefore be held criminally liable for the crime of x as accomplices. The court is requested to sentence both defendants according to articles x and x of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. Defendants Ge and Lu do not object to the facts and charges brought by the prosecution. Defendant Ge requests leniency in sentencing. The defense lawyer, Jiang, submitted that while there is no objection to the criminal facts and charges, defendant Ge has the following mitigating circumstances: 1. Lesser subjective malice and minor social harm; he has always abided by the law. 2. After the incident, his family voluntarily offered restitution and obtained the victim’s forgiveness. 3. He has a good attitude towards admitting guilt and can truthfully confess his criminal behavior. 4. He is a first-time and occasional offender. A request is made for leniency in defendant Ge's sentencing, with consideration for a probation application. After court examination, the evidence submitted by the prosecution was verified as true. The court confirms the facts charged by the prosecution against defendants Ge and Lu for the crime of x.


Upon examination, it was found that from early April 2013 to May 29, 2013, the defendant Zhang, together with the defendant Yue, hired defendant Li to illegally excavate 10,400.26 tons of iron ore without any mining permits in a river bend west of a village in a certain town of a certain city. All the ore was seized, with a total value of 509,613 RMB. It was further found that defendant Yue voluntarily surrendered to the public security bureau of a certain city on June 3, 2013. The facts stated above were not disputed by the three defendants during the court proceedings. Additionally, the case is supported by evidence including the case registration form from the public security bureau of a certain city, the circumstances of the defendants being brought to justice, the confessions of defendants Zhang, Yue, and Li, the testimonies of witnesses Wang Jia, Song, Chen, Wang Yi, and Ma, on-site photographs, verification from the city's land and resources bureau, a resource assessment report from the First Geological Survey Institute of China Metallurgical Geology Bureau concerning Zhang's mining site in a village of a certain town of a certain province, the asset valuation report related to the case in a certain province, a valuation report on the damage to mineral resources caused by illegal and destructive mining from the land and resources department of a certain province, as well as the household registration certificates of the three defendants, all of which provide sufficient evidence for conviction.


The prosecution alleges that from November 3 to November 6, 2012, the defendants Sun, Tang, and Hu, with the intent of making a profit, provided equipment at the second floor of "U1S Board Game Bar" in Liuhe Tianyu, Pu Yan Street, of this district, for others to gamble using "Texas Hold'em" poker. Defendants Sun and Tang, Hu agreed to share profits equally. During this period, they illegally gained more than 9,000 yuan through methods such as rake and receiving tips. After the incident, all three defendants have returned the total illegal earnings. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants Sun, Tang, and Hu during the court trial. There is also testimony from witnesses Liu, Chen, Shen, Zhang, and Xu; various chips, a deck of playing cards, accounting books, gambling funds, gambling equipment and other seized items, as well as inspection records; lists of seized and transferred items; police administrative penalty decision; explanatory notes; the details of the arrest; and household registration certificates and confessions of defendants Sun, Tang, and Hu made at the police station and in court, all supporting evidence sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charged that on the evening of September 16, 2015, the defendant Wang kept Li and Yuan in room xx of xx hotel in this city where he was staying, to consume methamphetamine (ice) and methamphetamine tablets (commonly known as "magu") by smoking. On the evening of around September 19 of the same year, the defendant Wang kept Li and others in room xx of xx inn in Yinzhou District of this city where he was staying to consume methamphetamine by smoking. On the evening of September 21 of the same year, the defendant Wang kept Li and 2 others in room xx of xx hotel in Yinzhou District of this city where he was staying to consume methamphetamine by smoking. In the early morning of September 23 of the same year, the defendant Wang kept Li in room xx of xx hotel in Yinzhou District of this city where he was staying to consume methamphetamine and methamphetamine tablets by smoking. In the evening of a day in late August 2015, in the evening of a day in early September 2015, in the evening of around September 10, 2015, and in the evening of around September 20, 2015, the defendant Li on four occasions kept Wang at his rented place to consume methamphetamine by smoking. At around 0:00 on October 11, 2015, the police arrested the defendant Li in this city and found a package of methamphetamine (net weight 0.6536 grams) on him. Based on the above facts and circumstances, the public prosecution agency suggests sentencing the defendant Wang to one year in prison and a fine for x crime, and sentencing the defendant Li to eight months in prison and a fine for x crime. The above facts are not disputed by the defendants Wang and Li during the trial process, and are corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses Hu, Zhu, Mao, and another Zhu, the records and decision of seizure, the list of seized items, photographic materials, temporary detention receipts, hotel guest lists, rental agreements, on-site test reports, household registration certificates, arrest records, criminal judgment, public security administrative punishment decision, explanatory notes, physical and chemical test identification reports, and recognition records, etc., which are sufficient for confirmation.


The People's Procuratorate in a certain area charges: 1. One night in early July 2016, defendants Luo and Xiao allowed Yang, Jiang, Deng, and others to use a homemade "ice pipe" to consume methamphetamine in the employee dormitory 301 of Hengsheng Company in Wukeng Village, Longhu Town, Jinjiang City; 2. One night around July 27, 2016, defendants Luo and Xiao again allowed Yang, Jiang, Deng, and others to use a homemade "ice pipe" to consume methamphetamine in their dormitory in the same location; 3. One night at the end of August 2016, defendants Luo and Xiao allowed Yang, He, Deng, and others to use a homemade "ice pipe" to consume methamphetamine in the same dormitory. On September 8, 2016, defendants Luo and Xiao were apprehended by the public security organs. The defendants Luo and Xiao raised no objections to the aforementioned facts during the court trial. Evidence supporting the charges includes the apprehension report and case-solving report issued by the public security organs, testimonies of witnesses Xu, Jiang, Deng, Yang, and He, identification records, photos of identified persons, household registration information, a decision document on evidence preservation, inspection records, urine test records, on-site testing reports, administrative punishment decision documents, photo identifications, administrative punishment decision documents, spousal housing registration forms, among others.


The prosecution alleges that on the night of October 27, 2012, defendants Liu, Li, and Du collaborated and went to the fields near the wholesale market at Xihe Road, Jinping Street in this city. Taking advantage of the darkness and absence of people, they sawed down and stole ten camphor trees planted by the victim Lin, eight of which were valued at a total of 6,450 RMB, with the remaining two unable to be appraised. After the incident, defendant Liu and Du each compensated the victim Lin with 3,500 RMB, and defendant Li compensated Lin with 3,000 RMB, each receiving Lin's forgiveness. Furthermore, it was found that defendants Li and Du were arrested by police on April 1 and April 16, 2015, respectively. Defendant Du assisted the police in arresting defendant Liu on the day he was brought in. The above facts were undisputed by defendants Liu, Li, and Du during the trial of this case and were corroborated by evidence such as the statement of victim Lin, identification records, on-site inspection records, price appraisal report, seizure warrant and list of items returned, photographs, compensation agreement, letter of forgiveness, statement of circumstances, case history, and population information forms, sufficient to establish the facts. Based on the criminal facts and circumstances of the defendants, the prosecution suggested sentencing defendant Liu to six to eight months imprisonment with probation, and a fine; it suggested sentencing defendants Li and Du to four to six months of detention with probation, and a fine.


The People's Procuratorate in a certain area charges: From 2009 to February 17, 2012, the defendant Li sold the "One Kidney Gold" product multiple times in his pharmacies "Ningbo Zhenhai Spring Pharmacy" and "Ningbo Zhenhai Yongxin Pharmacy," which he purchased from the defendant Zhu. On February 17, 2012, the aforementioned products were ordered to be seized by the Ningbo Zhenhai District Food and Drug Administration. According to the inspection results from the Zhejiang Provincial Institute for Food and Drug Control, 76 capsules of the "One Kidney Gold" seized from the defendant were determined to be counterfeit drugs. During the court hearing, defendants Zhu and Li did not dispute these facts. These facts are supported by documentary evidence, including household registration certificates of defendants Zhu and Li, records of their capture, payment receipts, delivery notes, certificates of release upon completion of sentence, explanatory notes, business licenses, inventory lists of seized items, seizure decision documents, approvals, photographs, inspection reports, on-site inspection records, and investigation records, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


Upon examination, it was found that at around 11 PM on July 15, 2016, the defendants Xu and Wang drove under the influence of alcohol to a location 100 meters west of a certain residential area in a district. They had a dispute with a taxi cab over a driving issue. Subsequently, the defendants Xu and Wang assaulted the taxi driver, Zhang1, and his relative, Zhang2. After the victim Zhang1 called the "110" command center of the district's Public Security Bureau, officers from the Xinle police station responded. However, the defendants Xu and Wang, ignoring the officers' advice, continued to create trouble under the influence of alcohol, verbally abusing and assaulting officer Wang2. According to the forensic examination by the district's Public Security Bureau, the injuries sustained by Zhang1 and Wang2 were identified as minor injuries. Furthermore, it was found that after the incident, the relatives of the defendant Xu commissioned his lawyer to compensate the victims Wang2 and Zhang1 with 20,000 yuan each for their economic losses. The relatives of the defendant Wang commissioned his lawyer to compensate the victim Wang2 with 15,000 yuan and the victim Zhang1 with 20,000 yuan for their economic losses. The victims Wang2 and Zhang1 provided written statements of understanding and forgiveness for the actions of the two defendants. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants Xu and Wang during the court trial. Additionally, they were supported by the testimonies of the victims Wang2 and Zhang1, the testimonies of witnesses Gao, Zhang2, WangA, Zhang3, and Wang3, identification records, photographs, forensic reports, settlement agreements, receipts, statements of understanding, and the defendants' household registration documents. These pieces of evidence are sufficient for the determination of the case.


Upon examination, it was found that at around 19:00 on May 8, 2013, the defendants Shao, Xu, together with Huang (handled in another case), planned to commit theft behind a hospital on a certain street in the Longhua New District of Bao’an, a city. They carried tools prepared by Huang, such as pliers, and walked towards Xintian Community to look for an opportunity to commit the crime. The defendants Shao, Xu, and Huang A arrived at Shao's residence in Niueoling, Xintian Community, below a rental apartment, and discovered a Samsung mobile phone store. Huang suggested stealing phones from this store, after which the three went to Shao's residence to discuss the plan. Around 2:00 the next morning, defendants Shao, Xu, and Huang arrived at the Samsung mobile phone store belonging to the victim, Fang, and used tools such as pliers to pry open the rear window. Shao and Huang climbed into the store and stole 28 mobile phones including Apple 4S, Samsung, Nokia, Daxian, among others, handing them to Xu outside the store who was responsible for keeping watch and assisting. Additionally, Huang stole a Samsung I9300 phone and a Nokia headset, concealing them on his person. After succeeding, the three returned to Shao's residence. Feeling remorseful, Shao and Xu decided to return the phones to the store. After discussion, they decided each person would keep one phone, and Xu would return the remaining 25 phones inside the store by placing them on the counter. That afternoon, defendant Shao sold a leftover generic brand phone for 90 yuan. That evening, upon learning that the police were investigating the case, Shao and Xu voluntarily surrendered to the police, and Xu handed over the stolen Apple 4S phone to the police. Except for five phones whose value could not be assessed, the identified stolen goods were valued at a total of 12,319 yuan. The retrieved 26 phones were returned to the victim. The above facts were not contested by defendants Shao and Xu during the trial, and evidence verified during the trial is sufficient to support this conclusion.


Upon trial, it was found: Around 1 a.m. on March 9, 2013, defendants Deng and Wei, after premeditating, robbed the victim, Ni, on the east side of the non-motorized lane of Bako Line, diagonally opposite the Dangshan Gas Station in Xinyuan Village, ** District, Hangzhou City. Using methods such as choking and frisking, they caused minor injuries to the victim, Ni. Due to the victim's loud cries for help and strong resistance, they fled before they could frisk him. During the escape, defendant Wei, when intercepted and questioned by patrolling officers due to his suspicious behavior, voluntarily confessed to the robbery committed in collusion with defendant Deng. Defendant Deng, during questioning by patrol officers, failed to truthfully confess. These facts were undisputed by defendants Deng and Wei during the trial and were corroborated by the victim Ni's statement, testimonies of witnesses Wang Alpha, Wang Beta, Ni Alpha, Lei Certain, identification records, on-site investigation records, injury assessment report, photos of the victim's clothing, interrogation video, details of the incident, and defendants Deng and Wei's household registration certificates, among other evidence, sufficient to establish the facts.


After trial, it was found: On August 23, 2014, the defendants Bi and Huang (who were in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship) jointly rented garage xx of building xx in Feihong New Village, Zhonghe Street, a certain district in a certain city, and during their stay, repeatedly allowed others to consume methamphetamine in this temporary residence. Specifically: One evening in early November 2014, defendant Bi allowed Li to consume methamphetamine in the temporary residence. At around 11 p.m. on the night of November 18 or 19, 2014, defendant Bi allowed Gou, "Aguo," and "Heige" to consume methamphetamine in the temporary residence. At around 6 p.m. on November 22, 2014, defendants Bi and Huang allowed Gou, "Aguo," and "Heige" to consume methamphetamine in the temporary residence. At around 11 p.m. on November 30, 2014, defendants Bi and Huang allowed Gou and "Heige" to consume methamphetamine in the temporary residence. One evening in late November 2014, defendant Bi allowed Li to consume methamphetamine in the temporary residence. Furthermore, during their stay in this temporary residence, defendant Huang alone or together with Bi repeatedly allowed Gou to consume methamphetamine in the temporary residence. On December 2, 2014, defendants Bi and Huang were arrested by the police at garage xx of building xx in Feihong New Village, Zhonghe Street, a certain district in a certain city. The above facts were not disputed by defendants Bi and Huang during the trial, and are corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses Li, Gou, and Tang, inspection records, site identification records and photos, on-site test reports, the rental contract, a copy of Huang's identification card, the administrative punishment decision, details of the arrest, investigation reports, and the household registration certificates of the two defendants, which are sufficient to ascertain the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain location charged that on June 29, 2015, at approximately 1 a.m., at the proposal of defendant Sun, defendants Sun and Er conspired to commit theft. In the Jincheng Garden of the Weihai Torch Hi-Tech Industrial Development Zone, defendant Er acted as a lookout outside while defendant Sun entered the second floor of the victim Zhang's home using the method of climbing the building, stealing a LV women's handbag owned by Zhang, which contained 567 RMB, 100 HKD, 5 USD, a bank card, an ID card, and other items. After the theft was completed, the two defendants were apprehended by patrolling police officers, and the stolen items were seized from defendant Er. The two defendants confessed to the criminal act of theft without dispute. After the incident, the stolen items were returned to the victim.


The People’s Procuratorate of a certain district in Taizhou City charges: On March 9, 2016, the defendant Fang, due to a debt dispute with the victim Zhou Mouyi, colluded with defendants Ge and Liu to threaten and intimidate the victim verbally and illegally detained the victim until the afternoon of March 21, 2016. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution presented evidence in court, including the victim's statement, testimonies of relevant witnesses, and the defendants’ confessions and defenses. It is thus considered that the actions of defendants Fang, Ge, and Liu constitute the crime of x. Defendant Ge and Liu are considered accomplices, and defendant Liu is considered to have voluntarily surrendered to the authorities, which should be taken into account according to the law. Defendants Fang, Ge, and Liu have no objection to the criminal facts and charges in the indictment and expressed a willingness to plead guilty. The defense lawyer Liu Mou A argued that defendant Fang committed the crime to collect a debt from the victim, pleaded guilty in court voluntarily, and showed remorse, suggesting the court impose a lighter penalty and consider probation. Defense lawyer Li Moumou argued that defendant Ge is an accomplice, pleaded guilty in court voluntarily, and showed remorse, suggesting the court impose a lighter penalty and consider probation. Upon examination, it was found that on March 9, 2016, defendant Fang, due to a debt dispute with victim Zhou Mouyi, colluded with defendants Ge and Liu to bring the victim Zhou Mouyi from a certain city in a certain province to this city. They threatened and intimidated the victim Zhou Mouyi verbally and closely monitored the victim in various districts of this city. Defendant Fang closely monitored the victim Zhou Mouyi around the clock, and arranged for defendants Ge and Liu to assist with the monitoring during the daytime. On the afternoon of March 21, 2016, the victim Zhou Mouyi was rescued by the public security authorities. After the incident, defendant Liu surrendered to the authorities. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Fang, Ge, and Liu during the trial, and are confirmed by the victim Zhou Mouyi's statement, testimonies of witnesses Zhou Moujia, Xiao Mou, and others, the apprehension process, IOUs, identification records, photos, and video materials, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of Yuhang District in a certain city charges: From March 2019 to August 13, 2019, defendants Shen and Chai and others collaborated at the Mingyu Foot Massage Parlor in Yuhang District, a certain city, to harbor prostitutes Tang and Guo and others for prostitution, illegally profiting over 500,000 RMB. During this period, defendant Lin, knowing that prostitution was taking place in the foot massage parlor, still assisted Lin 1 in management, bringing in customers, and arranging technicians for services, involving an amount over 500,000 RMB. Defendant Ou, starting work at the Mingyu Foot Massage Parlor at the end of May 2019, knowing that prostitution was occurring in the parlor, still assisted with cashier duties and compiling daily service logs, involving an amount over 300,000 RMB. The evidence provided for the charges includes documentary evidence; witness testimonies; inspection records, examination records, identification records; video CDs; and the confessions and defenses of the defendants.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain Banner in a certain area charges: On May 30, 2019, defendants Zhang and Wu drove a pickup truck with license plate ××× to a pastoral area to purchase sheep. As they did not receive any sheep and lost a truck's worth of fuel, they decided to steal cattle and sheep to compensate for their loss. Defendants Zhang and Wu drove the pickup truck with license plate ××× near the grazing point of Wu's household in a certain town within a certain Banner of a certain area. The two defendants used a rope to lasso a calf from Wu's household, loaded it onto the pickup truck, and continued driving south. When they reached near Wang A's grazing point at the 75-kilometer mark of the He'e highway, the defendants manually loaded a calf lying on the roadside into the pickup truck. The two defendants took the two stolen calves to Zhang's grazing point. According to the appraisal by the Price Certification Center of a certain Banner in a certain area, the calf from Wu's household was valued at 800 RMB, while the calf from Wang's household was valued at 7,000 RMB. On July 18, 2019, defendants Zhang and Wu compensated the victim Wang with 18,000 RMB and the victim Wu with 15,000 RMB. On August 30, 2019, defendant Zhang voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. On September 3, 2019, defendant Wu voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. The aforementioned facts are not disputed by defendants Zhang and Wu during the trial, and are substantiated by evidence such as the police response registration form, case registration form, decision to file a case, household registration information, list of seized items, receipts, letter of understanding, price certification report, witness testimonies, statements from victims, and confessions from the defendants, which are sufficient to establish the case.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain county in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region charged that at around 0:00 on February 27, 2014, the defendants Liang and Wei, in collaboration with Ban A and Ban B (both of whom have been sentenced), stole a blue and white two-wheeled moped belonging to the victim, Xiang, which was parked in front of the Yiku Internet Café on Donggang Road, Pingma Town, in the said county. According to the appraisal by the price certification center of the respective county, the stolen moped was valued at 3,102 yuan. The prosecution presented relevant evidence to the court to substantiate the alleged criminal facts.


Upon trial, it was found that: On February 28, 2019, the People's Government of a certain county issued a notice on implementing a fishing ban period system, stipulating that the fishing ban period in the Duhe River Basin within the county is from 0:00 on March 1 to 24:00 on June 30 each year. At about 13:00 on May 19, 2020, the defendants Xiao and Liu used electrical fishing equipment to catch fish in the Duhe River Basin (Gongzuo section, Liulin Township, a certain county). The defendant Xiao operated the fishing equipment, while the defendant Liu carried a plastic bucket to collect the fish caught. By 14:00 on the same day, they were caught on the spot by the fishery law enforcement officers of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau of the county, who then confiscated one inverter (model: 89000H, power: 1290A), one lithium battery (power: 120AH), a set of electric nets, and the catch (214 fish of various species, weighing 0.6 kg). After the incident, the defendants Liu and Xiao each paid a compensation fee of 2500 yuan to the county's Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau for the destruction of ecological resources. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants Liu and Xiao during the trial, and were corroborated by the following evidence presented and cross-examined during the trial and confirmed by this court: 1. Physical evidence photos: inverter, electric net, catch, etc.; 2. Documentary evidence such as household registration certificate, notice from the People's Government of a certain county; 3. Testimonies of witnesses Li and Deng; 4. Inspection and examination records; 5. Audio-visual materials; 6. Confessions of the defendants Liu and Xiao.


The trial has concluded. The prosecution alleges that on April 27, 2013, at approximately 21:00, the victims Zhen, Chen, Luo, and Liu Huahua were playing gambling machines inside the "Yijia Game Hall" on Wenxuequan Road, Jingling Office, Tianmen City. The operator of the game hall, Zhao Mouqun, suspected the four victims of cheating and called the defendant, Chen, to handle the situation. Defendant Chen then invited defendant Gan and others to the scene, where they threatened and assaulted the four victims with a knife, forcing them to hand over 9,600 yuan. Subsequently, defendant Chen demanded an additional 10,000 yuan from each victim. Victim Luo led defendants Chen and Gan to the Construction Bank across from the Zhongbai Warehouse on Donghu Road, Jingling Office, Tianmen City, withdrew 4,000 yuan from his bank card, and handed it over to defendant Chen. It was further discovered that on April 28, 2013, after being summoned by phone by officers from the Jingling Police Station of the Tianmen Public Security Bureau, defendant Chen voluntarily went to the police station and truthfully confessed to the robbery committed with others, and returned the illegal proceeds of 13,600 yuan. The aforementioned facts were undisputed by defendants Chen and Gan during the trial and were corroborated by evidence including household registration certificates, discovery and arrest records from the Tianmen Public Security Bureau, the transaction detail statement of the Chinese Agricultural Bank Jinsui debit card, receipts for temporarily withheld goods in a certain province, testimonies of witnesses Zhao Mouqun, Jin Mouhong, Wang Mou, and statements of victims Zhen, Chen, Luo, and Liu Huahua. Defense attorney Xu Moumou argued that defendant Chen showed signs of voluntary surrender, had a good attitude towards admitting guilt, and actively returned the stolen money. Defense attorney Xie Moumou argued that defendant Gan was an accessory to the crime, truthfully confessed his criminal actions after being apprehended, and voluntarily pleaded guilty in court.


The prosecution agency charges that from late April to early May 2015, at around 16:00 on one of those days, the defendants Mao, Chen, and Deng, acting together, used electric fishing tools purchased online to catch several carp and crucian carp in a section of the Dongping River about 200 meters west of the Shiwanzuo Bridge on Chanshi Avenue in a certain district of a certain city. On May 12th of the same year, around 16:00, the defendants Mao, Chen, and Deng again went to the aforementioned location and used electric fishing tools to catch a total of six fish, including carp and crucian carp, and were subsequently caught red-handed by the police. The above facts were not disputed by the defendants Mao, Chen, and Deng during the court hearings. The evidence, which is sufficient to establish the facts, includes the arrest process, the seizure record, the list of seized items, the list of handed-over items, testimonials, on-site photographs, household registration certifications, prohibited fishing zone maps, video materials with explanations, and the defendants' statements and identification records during the investigation phase.


The prosecution alleges that on June 28, 2015, at 11:00 am, defendants Ceng and Chen, along with Liu (handled in a separate case), rode a motorcycle to the front of Aier Eye Hospital on Jiefang Road. Liu acted as a lookout while defendants Ceng and Liu A used bolt cutters to break the lock and steal a Ling Shi-brand electric bicycle (valued at 2,760 RMB) that victim Deng had parked in front of Aier Eye Hospital. On the same day at 12:00 pm, defendants Ceng, Chen, and Liu (handled in a separate case) rode a motorcycle to the passageway below Longsheng Taekwondo Gym on Taoyuan West Road. Liu acted as a lookout while defendants Ceng and Liu used bolt cutters to break the lock and steal a Guihuo-brand electric bicycle (valued at 2,490 RMB) that victim Liu had parked in the passageway. During the court hearing, defendants Ceng and Chen raised no objections to the above facts. Evidence includes victim Deng and Liu's report records and statements, appraisal opinions numbered 0310 and 0382 of 2015, and notices of appraisal opinions; identification records; copies of receipts for the purchase of the stolen electric bicycles; photographs of the crime scenes; video screenshots from the crime scenes; a report of the apprehension process by the public security authorities; synchronized audio and video recordings; the criminal judgments numbered 37 from 2007, 63 from 2011, and 121 from 2010, as well as the confessions and identifications of defendants Ceng and Chen, etc. These pieces of evidence are clear and sufficient to affirm the facts.


Upon investigation, it was found that around midnight on July 1, 2016, defendants Li and Zhang went to a location west of a certain town in a certain county and placed sand inside the engine of a motor grader owned by the victim, Chen C. This act damaged the engine, forcing Chen C to halt road construction for six days, severely affecting the construction progress. According to an appraisal by the Price Certification Center of a certain county, the total value of the damaged parts of the grader's engine amounted to RMB 12,885. On July 9, 2016, Li turned himself in at the Zhangguotun Police Station of a certain county's Public Security Bureau. After the incident, Li and Zhang compensated Chen C with a total of RMB 30,000 for repair and lost work time, for which Chen C expressed forgiveness and requested leniency for the defendants. During the court proceedings, defendants Li and Zhang did not object to the stated facts. Additionally, evidence includes the defendants' confessions during the investigation phase, Zhang's site identification records and photos, testimonies from witnesses Chen B and Liu B, statements from the victim Chen C, Price Certification Report No. 056 (2016) from the county's Price Certification Center, police reports and documentation from the county's Public Security Bureau, including the register of received reports, case registration forms, seizure decision, inventory of seized items and photos, inventory of returned items, receipt of evidence materials list and the materials themselves, site diagrams and maps, photos and videos of the scene and evidence, video screenshots and production notes, and a letter of forgiveness; all of which are sufficient to confirm the facts.


After trial, it was found that during the period from September 28 to 30, 2019, defendants Zhou and Zhang, along with others, colluded and cooperated with the victim Wang while playing mahjong in the game rooms of Friendship Nanyuan Community and Longyunshedu Community in a certain district. By cheating, they defrauded Wang of 15,840 RMB. It was further found that on October 15, 2019, defendants Zhou and Zhang were summoned to the case by investigators from the Hailar Branch of the Hulunbuir Public Security Bureau. After the incident, the defendants' families fully returned the stolen funds and obtained the victim's understanding. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Zhou and Zhang during the trial, and there is sufficient evidence in the case, including police dispatch registration forms, case acceptance registration forms, case filing decisions, the defendants' household registration documents, process documentation of their apprehension, identification records, WeChat transfer records, administrative penalty decisions, Wang's statement, the defendants' confessions at the public security organ, and discs.


After trial investigation, it has been found that defendant Xu, along with others, conspired in late March 2015 to rent the second floor of a house at Nos. 1-3, Building 60, Wansongyuan Community, Jianghan District, this city, which was leased by defendant Yao. They used computer networks to register an account on a gambling website named "Sunshine Online" and repeatedly organized social individuals to use the provided registered account and login password to place cash bets on the "baccarat" game on the gambling site, from which they derived profits by skimming. Defendant Yao, knowing that defendant Xu was engaged in the criminal activity of setting up a casino, not only provided the aforementioned venue but also lent defendant Xu 10,000 RMB in cash to purchase specialized gambling equipment. On May 13 of the same year, at around 22:00, the police, acting on a tip-off, went to the above location and arrested defendant Xu on the spot, capturing two individuals involved in gambling. They seized gambling equipment including one computer host, one LCD TV, a box of chips, and confiscated a total of 18,000 RMB in gambling funds. Subsequently, the police also arrested defendant Yao. During the trial, defendant Yao returned 9,000 RMB of his illegal gains. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants during the court trial and are corroborated by evidence such as on-site photos and photos of physical evidence, police arrest and investigation reports, statements of circumstances about coming to court, basic information on the resident population, criminal judgment and administrative punishment decision documents, house lease contract and proof, inventory of seized and recovered items, witness testimonies from Wang, Huang, Liu, Liu A, Ren, and Yao, identification records, electronic data discs, and examination reports, which are sufficient for conviction.


The prosecution alleges that on the evening of July 21, 2014, Mao (currently at large) got into a scuffle with Feng, Liu, and others after a collision while roller skating at the Beibei Amusement Park in the town of Pucheng. Dissatisfied with the incident, Mao repeatedly went to the amusement park to wait for Liu and others to seek revenge at the right moment. Around 8 PM on July 27, 2014, after spotting Feng, Liu, and others at the Beibei Amusement Park, Mao asked the defendants Jiang and Ye to join him in retaliation. Liu and others, noticing this, left on their bikes. Encouraged by Mao, defendants Jiang and Ye, along with Mao, chased after them on a moped. The two groups dismounted near the pedestrian walkway of Fang Zhimin Square in the town center. Defendants Jiang and Ye got off their moped and chased Wei B and Wei A with belts, while Mao attacked Liu with a kitchen knife, slicing his left abdomen. As Liu fled down some stairs, he fell onto the walkway, where defendants Jiang and Ye kicked him and then whipped him with belts. Mao approached again and slashed Liu three times in the head with the kitchen knife. After committing the crime, defendants Jiang, Ye, and Mao fled the scene on the moped. According to the appraisal by the Nanping Public Security Bureau's Forensic Evidence Department, Liu's injuries were classified as minor injuries of the second degree. Furthermore, it was found that after the incident, defendant Jiang voluntarily surrendered to the public security authorities and compensated the victim 1,000 yuan for medical expenses. Defendant Ye compensated the victim 11,000 yuan for medical expenses and other economic losses, obtaining the victim's understanding. During the trial, defendants Jiang and Ye raised no objections to the above facts, which are corroborated by household registration documents, the process of capture, receipts, letters of understanding, testimonies of seven witnesses including Wei A, Wei B, and Feng, the victim Liu's statements, and the confessions and defenses of defendants Jiang and Ye. Additionally, the evidence from the Pucheng County Public Security Bureau's on-site investigation records, identification photos, site map, and identification transcripts are sufficient for confirmation.


The prosecution alleges that on October 31, 2015, Yang and Wu (both handled in separate cases) and others sought to monopolize the water celery business in the Zhougudui wholesale market of a certain town in the Yaohai District. They planned to drive out suppliers from another city who were conducting similar business in the market through instigating incidents. On November 2, around 7 PM, Yang and Wu invited defendants Zhang, Wang, and Song, Miao (both handled in separate cases) to dine at Feng’ao Hotel in a certain town in the Yaohai District. During the meal, Yang suggested finding a "haeho" (referring to a person with a long-term severe illness) to cause trouble for the stall owners from a certain city. Zhang and others agreed. Subsequently, Yang and Zhang contacted defendant Zhou (who has liver disease) by phone, instructing him to cause trouble with a promise of a daily benefit of 1000 RMB, to which Zhou agreed. That evening, Yang and Zhang drove Zhou from the Government Affairs District to Zhougudui market and instructed him to cause trouble at the stalls of city suppliers Hou and Zeng. Zhou maliciously obstructed their normal business by claiming he was beaten by Zeng in a certain city, leading Zeng to report to the police, and the situation was pacified by the local station. Around 10 PM, Yang, Zhang, Wang, Zhou, Song, Miao, and others had a meal at a lamb skewer restaurant on Heyu Road. After the meal, Yang again instructed Zhou to cause trouble, leading Zeng and others to call the police once more. The police took both parties for processing. Following this, Yang, Zhang, and others took one vehicle, while Wang, Wu, Song, Miao, and others took another to the entrance of the Daxing Police Station on Yuxi Road, intending to teach the city stall owners Hou and Zeng a lesson. At about 3 AM the next day, when Hou and Zeng were released from the police station, Wang, Wu, Song, Miao, and others chased and beat them with wooden sticks, injuring Hou in multiple areas. Forensic assessm


The People's Procuratorate of a certain region has charged that on the afternoon of February 13, 2019, defendants Si and Nao encountered defendants Lang, Zhan, Zha, and others on the road from a certain temple to a certain town. Due to prior conflicts between the two parties, a confrontation ensued, and during the fight, all five defendants were injured. Subsequent forensic evaluations by the Qinghai Red Cross Hospital forensic appraisal office determined that defendant Lang and defendant Zha sustained injuries classified as minor injuries level 1, while defendant Zhan’s injuries were classified as minor injuries level 2. The Qinghai Kunlun Forensic Center determined that defendant Si sustained injuries classified as minor injuries level 1, and defendant Nao sustained injuries classified as slight injuries. In support of the aforementioned charges, the prosecution has submitted to this court evidence including the incident report, case registration form, decision to file a case, personnel information form, appraisal report, injury photographs, physical evidence, defendants' confessions and defenses, on-site inspection record, and identification and recognition records.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charged that one day in October 2012, the defendant Kang, through the introduction of the defendant Xu, purchased a yellow Hyundai Reina sedan from Li A (deceased) from a certain village in a certain county for 21,000 yuan. Upon investigation, it was found that the car was stolen, valued at 72,422 yuan. The prosecution provided corresponding evidence for the above charges, believing that the defendants Kang and Xu's actions violated the provisions of Article x of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, constituting x crime, and requested the court to impose a penalty according to the law. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants during the trial, and were corroborated by several pieces of evidence including the victim Li's statement, the criminal case acceptance form, the price certification conclusion report from the Price Certification Center of Shenzhou City, the detention and return list from the Shenzhou City Public Security Bureau, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district of a certain city charges that beginning in February 2014, defendants Chen and Lin, without obtaining the necessary medical practice licenses, used the name cs577577 on WeChat to sell drugs C Certain (Inj) and LUTHIONE (Inj) and provide injection services to unspecified individuals at Room F1601, EAC International Apartments, Euromate Center, Jiaogong Road, a certain district of this city. Among them, defendant Chen was responsible for sourcing the drugs and providing medical procedures, while defendant Lin provided the operating venue and assisted in financial transactions through bank accounts and Alipay accounts. By May 15, 2014, the district health bureau investigated Room F1601, EAC International Apartments, Jiaogong Road, and seized on-site 3 boxes of C Certain (Inj) (10 vials per box), 3 boxes of LUTHIONE (Inj) (10 vials per box), Lidocaine Hydrochloride Injection, Gentamicin Sulfate Injection, and several surgical instruments. According to the city's Food and Drug Administration, the C Certain (Inj) and LUTHIONE (Inj) seized on site were both counterfeit drugs (treated as counterfeit drugs). The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Chen and Lin during the trial process, and were substantiated by the district's Health and Family Planning Bureau certification, evidence collection notices, evidence collection logs, Alipay account information, materials transferred by the health bureau, seizure decisions, seizure records, and photographs, criminal record inquiries, search warrants, search records and photographs, evidence preservation decisions, statements of circumstances, details of arrest and case development, household registration documents, and letters and opinions issued by the city's Food and Drug Administration identifying the nature of the products, all of which are sufficient to establish the charges.


The prosecution charges that in December 2016, the defendants Wang and Chen drove a silver-gray Wuling van and used homemade cages, wire, and other tools to secretly steal a black and white dog from the home of the victim Yan in a village of a certain town in a certain county, and a black dog from the victim Gao's home. They further secretly stole a yellow dog from the home of the victim Chen in a village of a certain township in a certain county. Additionally, they stole a yellow dog from the victim Wang2's home and a black dog from the victim Wang1's home in a village of a certain township of a certain city.

The defendants Wang and Chen did not object to the facts of the crime charged. The defense argued that they had no objection to the charge. Defendant Chen turned himself in after the crime and truthfully confessed to his criminal activities. Since defendant Chen was a first-time offender and played a secondary role in this case, with lesser subjective malice and social harm, it was suggested that the defendant be given a mitigated punishment.

The court investigation confirmed that in December 2016, the defendants Wang and Chen drove a silver-gray Wuling van and used homemade cages, wire, and other tools to secretly steal a black and white dog from the home of the victim Yan in a village of a certain town in a certain county, and a black dog from the victim Gao's home. They further secretly stole a yellow dog from the home of the victim Chen in a village of a certain township in a certain county. Additionally, they stole a yellow dog from the victim Wang2's home and a black dog from the victim Wang1's home in a village of a certain township of a certain city.

It was additionally found that defendant Chen voluntarily surrendered to the public security organs on January 20, 2017, and truthfully confessed the facts of the crime. The evidence supporting these facts includes the confessions and defenses of defendants Wang and Chen, the statements of the victims Gao, Yan, Chen, Wang2, and Wang1, six identification transcripts, seizure certificates, lists and photos of seized items and documents, the price determination conclusion from the Price Certification Center, the apprehension process, the process of coming to terms, the explanation from a public security bureau in a certain county, the on-site identification photos, and the household registration proof of the two defendants.


The People's Procuratorate of Fuxing District, a certain city, accused that on August 25, 2014, at about 11 PM, the defendants Feng, He, and Cheng had an altercation with the victim An (male, 28 years old) and others when Feng was riding an electric bicycle to a certain city’s Fuxing District, near Sunshine Supermarket on Qianjin Street, south of Lao Si Barbecue shop. After leaving, Feng gathered He, Cheng, and others to return to the location, where the three defendants assaulted An, causing injuries to An’s head and face. The injuries to An were identified as minor injuries of the second degree by forensic examination. On December 2, 2014, Feng turned himself in to the public security authorities, and on December 10 of the same year, Cheng and He also turned themselves in. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants Feng, He, and Cheng during the trial, and are corroborated by the evidence including: the testimony from Pengjiazai Police Station of the Fuxing District Branch of the Public Security Bureau of a certain city proving the three defendants came to the authorities; the statement of the victim An; the testimonies of witnesses Guo, Lin, Han, and Cao; the confessions of the defendants Feng, He, and Cheng at the public security authorities and the identification records pointing out the crime scene; the forensic medical opinion on human injury degree issued by the Physical Evidence Identification Center of the Public Security Bureau of a certain city; the on-site investigation record, scene diagram, and photos made by Pengjiazai Police Station of the Fuxing District Branch of the Public Security Bureau of a certain city; the minor injury case settlement agreement reached by the three defendants with the victim An, and the receipt of compensation and letter of understanding issued by An, which are sufficient to establish the case.


The public prosecution agency charges that defendants Chen and Zhang harbored Chuan and Deng for prostitution at Chen's bathhouse located at 57 Fanhua Road, Baihe Town, Tiantai County. On May 9, 2014, when Deng was engaged in prostitution with Wang, and Chuan with Mei, in a room on the third floor of Chen's bathhouse, they were caught by the public security authorities on the spot. On the same day, May 9, 2014, both defendants voluntarily surrendered to the public security authorities and truthfully confessed their criminal activities. Regarding the aforementioned facts, neither defendant Chen nor Zhang raised any objections during the court proceedings. The facts are verified by the statements of the two defendants included in the file, the testimonies of witnesses Wang, Chuan, Deng, and Mei, a copy of the individual business license, the inspection record, the identification record, the administrative penalty decision, the explanation of previous offenses, the account of apprehension, the household registration certificate, and other evidence, which are sufficient to confirm the charges.


The People's Procuratorate of Hanting District in a certain city charged: On the evening of August 4, 2014, defendants Guo, Wang, and Li went to the warehouse in the packaging workshop of Weifang Yaxing Chemical Company, Lushi No. 2 Company, and stole 24 bags of chlorinated polyethylene, valued at 7,200 yuan.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city charges: 1. On the evening of April 1, 2015, defendants A and Niu stole three BeiYinEr brand baby clothes, twelve KuBiTong brand baby bibs, and four KuBiTong brand baby hats, with a total value of 320 RMB, from the Yingzhidao children's clothing store on Jiangyang Road, Baiguan Street, in a certain district of a certain city by stealth. 2. One day at the end of March 2015, defendants A and Niu stole two Balabala brand baby clothes, with a total value of 185 RMB, from the Balabala children's clothing store on Yangguang Road, Baiguan Street, in a certain district of a certain city by stealth. 3. One day at the end of March 2015, defendants A and Niu stole one Nick+Beibei brand baby pants, valued at 23 RMB, from the Mami Baobao children's clothing store on Jiangyang Road, Baiguan Street, in a certain district of a certain city by stealth. 4. One day at the end of March 2015, defendants A and Niu stole one BeiYinEr brand baby clothing, valued at 56 RMB, from the Yingzhidao children's clothing store on Jiangyang Road, Baiguan Street, in a certain district of a certain city by stealth. After the incident, the public security organs returned the three seized clothes, four hats, and twelve bibs to the victim, Zhang. The above facts, which defendants A and Niu did not dispute during the trial, are corroborated by the confessions and defenses of defendants A and Niu, the statements of victims Zhang, Ma, and Yuan, the testimony of witness Gao, identification records and photos, the seizure decision, return list and photos, surveillance video, purchase lists, appraisal opinions, capture process and household registration certificates, and are sufficient to establish the case.


The prosecution alleges: 1. Around 3 a.m. on December 23, 2014, defendants Ding and Yang sneaked into Hongyuan Community in a certain city and smashed the glass of the car belonging to the victim Gao, which had the license plate number New GA78**. They stole a handbag from inside the car, which contained a wallet and a pair of glasses, along with 600 yuan in cash. The stolen items were valued at 1,975 yuan, with a total loss amounting to 2,575 yuan. 2. Around 3 a.m. on December 23, 2014, defendants Ding and Yang sneaked into the Garden Street Phase I compound in a certain city and smashed the glass of the Hyundai Elantra belonging to the victim Wang, which had the license plate number G189**. They intended to steal from the car but found no items or cash inside.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place accused the defendants Wei and Zhong. They saw the victim Luo's information about selling an off-road motorcycle on the "Longcheng Locomotive" website. After plotting together, at around 4 PM on June 29, 2013, defendant Zhong drove a certain Haihuapu brand car with license plate number Gui M××××× to take defendant Wei to meet victim Luo at the gate of the Second Middle School in Chang'an Town, Rong'an County, and proposed to test drive. While defendant Wei was test driving at the sports square in Rong'an County, he quickly drove away the Suzuki RMZ250 off-road motorcycle belonging to victim Luo. Afterwards, defendant Zhong was responsible for selling the stolen goods and received 6,800 yuan. According to the appraisal by the Rong'an County Price Certification Center, the stolen off-road motorcycle of victim Luo was valued at 11,400 yuan. On December 10, 2013, defendants Wei and Zhong were arrested in a certain town of a certain county in Rongshui. It was also found that the families of defendants Wei and Zhong had compensated victim Luo for his economic loss with 17,000 yuan and obtained the victim's understanding. The above facts were not disputed by defendants Wei and Zhong during the trial, and are substantiated by the testimony of victim Luo, decision of case filing, price appraisal conclusion, notification of appraisal opinion, mobile phone call records, recognition record, arrest process, household registration proof, receipt, and other evidence, which are sufficient for conviction.