The thief identified the boy and was convicted of provocation and prosecution.

category:Society click:297
 The thief identified the boy and was convicted of provocation and prosecution.


After a thief was found on the bus, a teenager took a cell phone to take pictures and was pulled out of the bus. The matter has aroused widespread concern in the Internet. Recently, 4 people involved in the beating of juveniles were sentenced to final appeal.

Last February 11, a netizen posted that on a bus in Xian at 8:00 a.m. on February 9, a teenager loudly identified the Thievesorganization on the bus, but instead was dragged down by a group of people from the other side and beaten wildly. The thief might be prepared for it, because when he pulled out the cover and put it on, he could get off and beat someone. A netizen told the post that the thieves involved had stolen many times on the bus. That morning, after the thieves had stolen a girls cell phone, they misled the girl to get off the bus and chase others. Later, when the bus drove to Yujiazhai Station, the teenager who was beaten suspected of seeing the thieves stealing again shouted they are thieves and was dragged down by many people and beaten.

Later confirmed by the reporter of China Business News, February 9, 2017 at 12 noon, Wang reported that he took the No. 256 bus, found several men stolen property, ready to photograph the police, was beaten by these men. And this Shaanxi juvenile bus identified thieves were pulled out of the car battered news quickly fermented on the Internet, causing the Peoples Daily official micro-blog and other media continued to pay attention.

Xian police received the report and set up a special group. On the night of February 12, the same year, all four suspects were arrested. According to the preliminary investigation by the police, four male suspects are Ren Mou (41 years old), Zhou Mou (36 years old) and Wang Mou (39 years old) in Gushi County, Henan Province. According to the investigation, 4 people drove from their native place to Xian in February 8th and committed crimes on the 9 day. Among them, Wang and Ren were attacked by public security authorities for pickpocketing.

Yesterday, the Shaanxi Procuratorate official Wechat public information, the first trial of the case sentenced the accused to make trouble, theft, Lianhu District Procuratorate protested. Recently, after hearing the case, the Xian Intermediate Court accepted the protest opinion of the procuratorial organs. It sentenced the defendant, Wang Mou, to eight years and six monthsimprisonment for robbery and theft. It sentenced the defendant, Zhou Mou and Ren Mou, to seven years and six months imprisonment. The defendant, on robbery, was sentenced to six yearsimprisonment and a fine respectively.

Lawyers say protest has demonstrative significance.

Is the court of first instance accurate in sentencing with crime of provocation and theft or theft? What is the basis for protest in Lianhu District Procuratorate, is it reasonable? Chinese business reporter interviewed relevant lawyers.

Lawyer Jianjiangtao, a partner of Beijing Jingshi Law Firm, argued that the court of first instance was wrong in sentencing the four defendants for the offence of agitation and theft. The Lianhu District Procuratorate lodged a protest and the judgment of the court of second instance was correct. Article 269 of the Criminal Law stipulates that whoever commits the crime of theft, fraud or robbery, uses violence or threatens violence on the spot for the purpose of harbouring stolen goods, resisting arrest or destruction of criminal evidence, shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 263 of this Law (i.e. the crime of robbery). In this case, the four defendants involved in the theft of a bus, after being pointed out by the juvenile, in order to combat retaliation, resistance to arrest, beating the juvenile, its behavior in line with the provisions of Article 269 of the Criminal Law, from theft to robbery. The court did not notice that the reason why the four defendants beat the juveniles was to resist arrest, but it was a mistake to identify the four defendantsbeatings as being indiscriminate, beating others at will, and as provocative. The court of second instance concluded that the assault of the four defendants was for resisting arrest and thus for robbery, which was correct.

Meng Tao, a lawyer from Beijing Zhongwen Law Firm, also believes that the teenagers were identified and stopped when they found out that these people had stolen once again, and then they were beaten violently. This is obviously the cause of the incident and does not belong to the casual beating of the crime of causing trouble. The beating of juveniles is actually a violent act committed in order to resist the arrest of others in the case of theft. It conforms to the provisions of Article 269 of the Criminal Law on the transformation of larceny into robbery, which is generally called transformational crime.

Lawyer Yin Qingli of Beijing Ross Law Firm believes that in this case, the purpose of the four defendants is theft, not other cases of arbitrary beating, so the court of first instance found that the offence of agitation, but to see the arbitrariness and results of the act, not to examine the purpose and transformation of the act. This change of sentence of Xian Intermediate Court should take into account the violent nature of the four defendantsassault on juveniles, convict and sentence more correctly, correct the improper practices of the court of first instance, in practice, has a certain demonstration significance, but also reflects the prosecutions function of protest supervision.

Teenage bus loudly identified that the thief was pulled off the car and was involved in 4 cases of assault.

Last February 11, a netizen posted that at 8:00 a.m. on February 9, a teenager on a bus in Xian loudly identified the Thievesorganization on the bus, but was pulled down by the other party and beaten wildly. Recently, the Xian Intermediate Peoples Court accepted the protest opinions of the procuratorial organs after hearing the final judgment of the case. The defendants were sentenced and fined respectively for robbery and theft.