After the sentencing of the first instance, Li Xuyi appealed. The Liaoning Provincial Higher Peoples Court opened the case in August 9, 2018. During the trial, the prosecution and the defense mainly debated whether Li Xuyi constituted surrender or not. The defender hoped that Li Xuyis judgment would be lenient in the second instance, and the appearing opinion of Liaoning Peoples Procuratorate was to maintain the original judgment.
After trial, it was found that the appellant, Li Xuyi, was a member of the financial escort (driver) of Yingkou Ruitai Escort Co., Ltd., who planned to rob the money carrier he was driving. At 11:00 on September 7, 2016, Li Xuyi, carrying guns and folding knives, drove a money cart from the Agricultural Bank of Dashiqiao, arrived at Yingkou Agricultural Bank with the escorts Song Mou, Liu Mou and Bai Mou to carry out the escort cash task. Li Xuyi obtained plastic tape from Liu somewhere, a staff member of Yingkou Agricultural Bank of China, for the reason that there were cracks in the door of the bank note carrier when other people handled the transfer business. Around 12 oclock on the same day, the relevant personnel remittance, the end of the payment, a total of 35 million yuan in cash, respectively, 17 bags and 2 suitcases for shipment. On the way back to Dashiqiao, Li Xuyi changed the companys escort route on the grounds of traffic jam. He parked the money carrier at a quiet spot on the west side of Xinghe Guobao District in Shiqiao City. He threatened the other four people in the vehicle with a prepared gun, snatching the shotgun carried by Song and Liu and forcing them to stop. Use the tape to bind four hands together. Later, Li Xuyi drove to the underground parking lot of Fenghua Yihe village in Gangdu administration area, took off two keys hung in the neck, opened the safe of the money carrier, grabbed three cash bags totaling 6 million yuan, and fled the scene. About half an hour later, four people, such as song and so forth, broke free, then called the police.
After the robbery, Li Xuyi hid 3 million yuan in the entrance of the underground parking lot, put 2 million yuan in his brother Lis bedroom, and handed over 600,000 yuan to Lis generation to pay off their debts, which totaled 109,000 yuan.
After the incident, the investigators collected a total of 5 million yuan of stolen money from the building and a certain Li family, and searched Li Xuyis residence that evening. Li Xuyi, who was hiding in his bedbox, was captured and the stolen money was 2892,000 yuan. After Li learned of Li Xuyis crime, he handed over the remaining 280,000 yuan to the public security organ in the afternoon after paying off his debts. The creditors who received the repayment also handed over 429,000 yuan respectively. In September 13th of the same year, Li Xuyis mother paid 1 thousand and 800 yuan to the public security organs. So far, the stolen money has been recovered.
According to the second instance, the appellant Li Xuyi used coercive means to rob property for the purpose of illegal possession, which constituted the crime of robbery. It is a premeditated crime, armed robbery is in use money cart, robbed 6 million yuan, the amount of crime is huge, should be punished according to law.
With regard to the legal errors in the application of the Court of First Instance proposed by the appellant Li Xuyi and his defender, Li Xuyis motive for robbery was the specific reason for appeal and defence opinions stipulated by the Supreme Court that a lenient punishment should be imposed. After investigation, Li Xuyis family did have foreign debt and repaid part of the debt immediately after taking the cash, which could prove his robbery. It is true that the robbery is related to debt, but the situation is different from the urgent need for medical treatment, life pressure, learning and other reasons, and the amount of robbery is far more than the debt repayment needs, does not meet the relevant interpretation requirements of the Supreme Court, so this section of opinion is not accepted.
In regard to Li Xuyi and his defenders suggestion that his wife lead the police to arrest, at least the appeal reason for lenient punishment for voluntary surrender and the appeal reason for Li Xuyis wife leading the police to arrest should be compared with the appeal reason and the defense opinion for lenient punishment for voluntary surrender. The officer searched Li Xuyis residence in accordance with legal procedures. Her wife, Zhang Meiling, was obliged to cooperate. Existing evidence failed to prove that Zhang Meiling had the initiative and enthusiasm to lead the public security officers in arresting Li Xuyi. Therefore, the opinion on this section was not accepted.
With regard to Li Xuyi and his advocatesappeal and defense opinions on Li Xuyis social harmfulness, subjective malignancy, low personal danger and no violent acts during the robbery, it was found that Li Xuyi had planned to commit a crime, carried folding knives and gun-like objects with him, and robbed the escort of two lethal shotguns. The real danger is enormous, and it does cause great deterrence and threat to the people present, which is enough to prove the personal danger and social harm. Li Xuyi robbed the money cart in use, resulting in the risk of loss of 29 million yuan of huge amount of cash remaining in the money cart, and the criminal plot and social impact are bad. Therefore, the views on this section will not be accepted.
In view of the appellant Li Xuyi did not cause personal injury consequences in the course of the crime, the stolen money from the crime was recovered in full within a short period of time, pleaded guilty and repented after returning to the case, and he may be given appropriate lenient punishment. The court of first instance has fully considered the above statutory and discretionary circumstances, and the sentencing is not improper. Therefore, the reasons for appeal and the defense opinions of Li Xuyi and his defenders for excessive sentencing in the first instance are not accepted.
The Liaoning High Court held that the original judgment was correct in finding out the facts and applying the law, that the sentencing was appropriate, that the proceedings were lawful, that the appeal was rejected and that the original judgment was maintained.
A man with a history of mental illness has been sent to Shanghai at the gate of the bank.
Recently, Shanghai Baoshan suspected bank robbery spread on the Internet, September 14, Shanghai Baoshan Public Security micro-blog on this matter to refute rumors.