The appellant (the defendant in the original trial) Liu Mou, male, born on October 20, 1991, Han nationality, junior high school culture, migrant worker, lives in Yongcheng City, Henan Province. He was detained for rape on June 13, 2019, released on bail on June 26, 2019, and arrested on September 30, 2019. He is now in custody at Suzhou No.1 detention center.
Defender * *, lawyer of Beijing Weiheng (Suzhou) law firm.
The original judgment held that: at about 0:00 on June 13, 2019, the defendant Liu Mou was drunk in the rental place of victim Li Mou (born on March 17, 2001), No. 65, gaojiabang, Fugang village, Luzhi Town, Wuzhong District, Suzhou city. On the pretext of revenge for his wifes infidelity, he tried to force his wifes younger sister Li Mou to have sexual relations by means of forcible pulling and pushing him to bed, etc. because the victim Li Mou resisted and called for help Failed. After the incident, the victim Li Mou expressed understanding to the defendant Liu Mou. Liu Mou, the defendant, truthfully confessed the above criminal facts.
The above facts include the household registration information of the defendant who has been proved and cross examined in the original trial, the process of solving the case, the process of catching the case, the process of extracting the record, the letter of understanding, the record and photo of on-site investigation, the record of confession and defense, the record of identification, the record of personal examination, the record of testimony paid by the witness, the list of seizure, the list of issuance and photo, the record of statement of the victim Li And so on.
The court of first instance held that Liu, the defendant, violated the will of women and used violent means to have sexual relations with women forcibly, which constituted the crime of rape. In the course of committing a crime, Liu Mou, the defendant, who failed to succeed for reasons other than his will, is an attempted crime and may be given a lighter or mitigated punishment than a completed crime. The defendant, Liu Mou, who confessed his crime truthfully after being found guilty, may be given a lighter punishment. The defendant, Liu Mou, pleads guilty and may be given a lenient punishment according to law. The defendant Liu Mou obtained the victims understanding and may be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 236, Article 23, the third paragraph of Article 67 of the criminal law of the peoples Republic of China and Article 15 of the criminal procedure law of the peoples Republic of China, the defendant Liu Mou was sentenced to one years imprisonment for the crime of rape.
Its defenders proposed that Liu, the appellant, was less violent, and that the court of first instance should punish him within the scope of the sentencing opinions of the procuratorate, which was too heavy, so that Liu, the appellant, should be given a reprieve or mitigated punishment.
After the trial of the second instance, it was found that the facts of the original judgment were clear and the evidence was indeed sufficient, which was confirmed by the court.
As for the appellant Liu Mou and his defenders who put forward the appeal reason and defense opinion that the original sentence was too heavy, the punishment should be mitigated and the probation should be applied. After investigation, Liu Mou, the appellant, who wanted to have sex with his wife and sister forcibly in the late night by means of violence, and the victim was young, his criminal circumstances were bad, his personal danger was great, and he did not meet the applicable conditions of probation, so the probation should not be applied to him. In the original judgment, Liu Mou, the appellant, was found to have confessions and attempted crimes, and his sentencing was not improper according to his criminal facts, which was also within the sentencing range of the sentencing proposal of Wuzhong District Peoples Procuratorate. Therefore, the court will not accept the reasons for appeal and the defence opinions put forward by him and his defenders.
To sum up, the facts of the original judgment are clear, the evidence is true and sufficient, the sentence is appropriate, and the trial procedure is legal. Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (1) of Article 236 of the criminal procedure law of the peoples Republic of China, the ruling is as follows: