The court of first instance found out
Shanghai Baoshan District People's Court ruled that Wu * * was the director of Baoshan Education Center from March 20 10 to February 20 14. His duty is to be fully responsible for the daily work of the education center and the procurement of sports equipment during the preparation of the sports center. During the period of 20 10, 1 1 to 20 1 1, Wu * * took advantage of the above positions to arrange for Shanghai Wei * * Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wei * * Company) and Shanghai Hou * * Co., Ltd. to be in Wei * *. Wu * * accepted a bribe of RMB 330,000 from Huang, the legal representative of Wei * * Company (the following currencies are all RMB), and accepted a bribe of RMB 35,000 from Wen, the legal representative of Hou xx Company, and paid a bribe of RMB 20,000 to Xu. 2065438+On February 25, 2004, Wu * * took the initiative to go to the case after receiving the notice from the case-handling department, and returned all the illegal income.
The court of first instance found that the evidence of the above facts included the testimony of witnesses Xu Moumou, Huang *, Wen *, Jin Moumou, Huang * and others; Major identification certificates of Wu * * and Xu, post employment contracts, resumes, resumes of cadres of Dachang * * service center, legal person certificates, organization code certificates, bid evaluation reports issued by Dachang * * service center, purchase contracts, sales contracts, bidding documents, payment vouchers for bookkeeping and purchase of fitness equipment, and lists of events and seized items issued by procuratorial organs; The confession of defendant Wu * * in the original trial, etc.
The court of first instance held that
The Baoshan District People's Court of Shanghai held that Wu * *, as a national staff member, took advantage of his position to accept bribes of 225,000 yuan from others, and his behavior constituted the crime of accepting bribes. In order to seek illegitimate interests, help others, and give property to state functionaries, it constitutes the crime of accepting bribes and should be punished for several crimes. Wu * * has a frank plot and has withdrawn all illegal income, so he can be given a lighter punishment according to law. Accordingly, according to the provisions of Article 385, paragraph 1, Article 386, Article 383, paragraph 1, paragraph 2, Article 389, paragraph 1, Article 390, paragraph 3 and Article 64 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), Wu * * is guilty of accepting bribes. He was convicted of accepting bribes, sentenced to two years in prison and decided to execute 11 years in prison; The illegal income seized in the case is RMB 225,000, which shall be confiscated according to law.
The appellant Wu * * argued that the original sentence was too heavy on the grounds of surrender. Defender suggested that Wu * * surrendered voluntarily and made a full confession when the procuratorial organ did not grasp the main criminal facts, which should constitute surrender, and requested our court to reduce the punishment for Wu * * and sentence him to fixed-term imprisonment of 10 years on the basis of identifying the circumstances of surrender and integrating the whole case.
The Second Branch of the Shanghai Municipal People's Procuratorate held that the fact that the court of first instance found Wu * * guilty of bribery and bribery was clear, the evidence was true and sufficient, the conviction and sentencing were not improper, and the trial procedure was legal. After examination, Wu * * took the initiative to appear in the case, but did not truthfully confess his criminal facts, so he could not be considered as surrender according to law. The original judgment was based on Wu's confession and withdrawal from all illegal gains, and his sentencing was in line with the law. It is suggested that this court reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
It was found through trial that the factual evidence identified by criminal judgment of Baoshan District People's Court (20 14)No. 165 1 was verified by court investigation procedures such as presentation, identification and cross-examination by the court of first instance. The facts identified in the second instance and the basis for identification are the same as those in the first instance.
The court held that
We believe that the appellant Wu * *, as a national staff member, took advantage of his position to accept other people's property and seek benefits for others, and his behavior has constituted the crime of accepting bribes; Giving property to state functionaries and seeking illegitimate interests for others constitutes the crime of accepting bribes, and should be punished for several crimes according to law. After investigation, Wu * * arrived at the case after receiving the notice from the case-handling organ, and did not truthfully confess his crimes. Although he made a guilty confession after being detained in criminal detention, he did not belong to other crimes that the judicial organs have not yet mastered, and he could not be considered as surrender according to law. The appellant Wu * * and his defender's opinion of Wu's surrender has no factual and legal basis and cannot be established. According to the facts and nature of Wu's crime, the court of first instance truthfully confessed similar serious crimes, which was a confession, and the illegal income was refunded. The judgment made was not improper and the trial procedure was legal. The second branch of the Shanghai Municipal People's Procuratorate suggested that our court reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment. Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of Item (1) of Paragraph 1 of Article 225 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the ruling is as follows:
Judgment result of second instance
Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
This is the final verdict.
Referee date
201March 5 12
For reference only, the content comes from the legal express.