news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

items worth less than 100 yuan and less than 3 minutes of store exploration ended the college life of college student zhang wen (pseudonym).

zhang wen was not given an administrative penalty by the public security agency for stealing something from a convenience store. later, a district government made an administrative penalty review decision, which upheld the non-penalty decision. he was also expelled from school for this matter. zhang wen insisted that he forgot to pay, not steal.

on september 3, a reporter from the paper learned from the shanghai no. 1 intermediate people's court (hereinafter referred to as the shanghai no. 1 intermediate court) that the court recently heard this administrative litigation case. college student zhang wen filed a lawsuit with the court because he was dissatisfied with the administrative decision of the public security agency not to impose punishment and the administrative reconsideration result made by the district government. the court finally ruled to dismiss his lawsuit.

college students look around in a convenience store and use bags to cover up "selecting" products

one morning in early summer of 2023, the police from the public security bureau received a report from mr. li, the manager of a convenience store. mr. li said that items were stolen from his store. the police quickly retrieved the store's surveillance video.

the surveillance video shows that at 21:36 three days before the incident, a young man entered the convenience store with a cloth bag in his hand. he paced in front of the shelf for a while, looked up and saw that the clerk was not around, so he reached out and put a bag of snacks on the shelf into his cloth bag. in the next three minutes, he "hid" snacks such as bread, chocolate, chewing gum, and potato chips in his bag, and did not forget to cover them with the items in the bag. in total, he "selected" 10 items worth 89.9 yuan.

it was not until 9:39 p.m. that he looked up at the clerk's position again, but found that no one noticed him. he glanced at the screen of his mobile phone, and left the convenience store with the unpaid goods.

after truthfully confessing the theft, it was decided that no administrative punishment would be imposed

at the time of the incident, there were no other customers entering or leaving the convenience store, and only a few clerks and workers who were busy taking inventory and sorting goods were walking around the store. therefore, the police quickly locked on the target based on the clues provided in the video.

on the same day, zhang wen, accompanied by his counselor, came to a district public security bureau, truthfully confessed his illegal behavior of theft, and paid for the stolen items, taking the initiative to make up for the loss. because the circumstances were minor, the convenience store manager mr. li expressed forgiveness for his behavior. after fulfilling the legal procedures, the district public security bureau issued a "decision on not imposing administrative penalty" to zhang wen on the same day. the decision stated: zhang wen committed the illegal act of theft in the convenience store. according to article 19, item (2) and item (4) of the "public security administration punishment law of the people's republic of china", "if there are active elimination or mitigation of illegal consequences and the understanding of the victim, or if there are active surrender and truthful statements of their illegal behavior to the public security organs, the punishment shall be mitigated or not punished", it was decided not to impose administrative penalties.

four days later, he refused to accept the administrative decision and sued the police and the government

four days later, zhang wen, dissatisfied with the decision not to impose a penalty, filed a reconsideration with a district government. he believed that he simply forgot to pay and did not commit theft, and that the district public security bureau had misclassified his behavior. at the same time, the school expelled him from the school for suspected violations of discipline (this case is being sued in another case). afterwards, a district government made an administrative penalty reconsideration decision, upholding the decision not to impose a penalty. zhang wen was dissatisfied with the decision not to impose a penalty and the administrative reconsideration decision, and filed a lawsuit with the court.

zhang wen, accompanied by his school teacher, took the initiative to go to the public security organ to state the case, and his signature was confirmed on the interrogation record. he should bear legal responsibility for the facts confirmed in the administrative law enforcement procedure. the public security organ made a decision not to punish zhang wen's illegal behavior after comprehensive consideration, which was not improper, and the law enforcement procedure was legal.

zhang wen was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the shanghai no. 1 intermediate people's court.

focus of the second instance: is the characterization of the “decision on not imposing administrative penalty” incorrect?

zhang wen stated that he was in a hurry to get back to school that night and forgot to pay. later, he was busy participating in school activities and forgot about the matter. his behavior was not theft, and he requested the revocation of the decision not to punish him and the disputed review decision.

after trial, the shanghai no. 1 intermediate people's court held that the surveillance video at the time of the incident clearly showed that when zhang wen was selecting the last few items at the store entrance, he repeatedly looked at the clerk's position, and turned and left immediately after confirming that the clerk was not paying attention. the content of the video obviously did not conform to his statement that he was eager to return to school and forgot to pay in a hurry, but was an objective manifestation of secret theft; secondly, three days had passed between the time the police contacted zhang wen's school and informed him of the incident, during which time zhang wen had not expressed his intention to return the money, reflecting the intention of illegal possession. based on the surveillance video, interrogation records, letters of understanding and other relevant evidence, zhang wen's theft can be identified. combined with the facts that zhang wen truthfully confessed, returned the money, and obtained forgiveness, the public security organs determined that his behavior constituted theft, but did not impose a penalty, which was legal and compliant, and there was nothing wrong with it.

so, is it illegal for the public security organ to deliver the disputed decision of not imposing punishment to the school?

the shanghai no. 1 intermediate people's court held that the public security organs cooperated with the school's teaching management and sent the disputed decision of non-punishment to the school. after that, the school's treatment of zhang wen did not affect the determination of the legality of the decision of non-punishment. as an adult college student, zhang wen should have a clear understanding of the possible legal consequences of his actions and statements during the investigation, and should bear the corresponding responsibilities.

in summary, the shanghai no. 1 intermediate people's court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

jing xiangli, the presiding judge of this case, pointed out that zhang wen's behavior in this case not only met the constituent elements of theft, but also met the statutory circumstances for non-punishment. the decision of the public security organ not to impose administrative penalties in accordance with the law and regulations was not improper. administrative penalties must be "proportionate to the crime". if the perpetrator has committed an illegal act, but the circumstances are minor and meet the statutory reasons, he should not be punished or the punishment should be mitigated. on the other hand, if the perpetrator has committed an illegal act but is not subject to administrative penalties because it meets the statutory reasons, it does not mean that his behavior is not illegal or that he has not committed any illegal act.