news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

previously, red star news reported thata man was hacked and killed his opponent with a brick. he was sentenced to 10 years in prison in the first instance. the second instance was not pronounced in court. whether it constituted legitimate defense became the key to the debateon september 20, the reporter learned from hao's family that after the case was heard by the xing'an league intermediate people's court of the inner mongolia autonomous region, the original verdict was upheld, that is, hao was found guilty of intentional injury and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

▲the second instance court ruling was provided by the interviewee

the ruling of the second instance shows that at about 21:00 on august 17, 2020, hao and wang drank and dined with others, and wang drove hao away. on the way, hao called zhang's mobile phone, and there were three calls from 21:17 to 21:22 on the same day. at 21:19 and 21:23 on the same day, guo (who was once a boyfriend and girlfriend with zhang) called hao's mobile phone twice, and the two quarreled and insulted each other on the phone.

later, hao and wang drove to the east gate of a residential community and had a conflict with guo. guo used a kitchen knife to cut hao's left forehead, scalp behind the left ear, scalp on the left temporal top, and left little finger. while the two were fighting, wang snatched the kitchen knife from guo's hand and threw it into the grass by the roadside. guo immediately left the scene and ran north from the north-south road of the east gate of the residential community.

the ruling shows that hao and wang paused for 15 seconds at the east gate of the community to discuss. wang proposed to send hao to the hospital for treatment, but hao quickly chased guo in the direction he left. wang first walked nearly ten steps north in the same direction before returning to the parking place and drove to chase him. during this time, hao and guo quarreled between two trees outside the fence on the east side of building 13 in the community. hao shouted, "you have already cut me three times, are you going to cut me again?" while shouting, he tore with guo. after that, wang drove over.

hao then hit guo with his hands, and guo also fought back. wang stepped forward and kicked guo twice, causing him to fall to the ground. hao hit guo's head four times with a brick. at this time, zhang rushed to the scene to stop him, and hao stopped hitting guo. later, wang drove hao to see a doctor, and zhang contacted others to send guo to the hospital.

guo died on september 7, 2020. it was determined that guo died of severe craniocerebral injury, while hao suffered a second-degree head and facial trauma. it was also determined that hao's left zygomatic arch fracture was a blunt instrument injury, which could be caused by a brick. after the incident, hao compensated guo's family 383,000 yuan and obtained forgiveness.

▲identification opinion notice issued by the public security organ

the second-instance court held that the case clearly presented two stages. the basic facts of the first stage were that guo and hao had a conflict at the east gate of the community. hao did not have any weapons or tools, but guo took a kitchen knife and chopped hao several times with it, causing hao to suffer minor injuries. hao was the victim of the conflict. the first stage of the conflict ended after wang took the weapon held by guo and threw it into the bushes, and ran north away from the scene.

the court pointed out that at this time, hao could have chosen to call the police and seek medical treatment, but after a brief discussion with wang, he chased guo, which triggered the second stage of conflict and injury. hao caught up with guo about 80 meters away from the scene of the crime at the east gate of the community, and began to beat and scold guo. he first hit guo in the face, and guo fought back with his hands. after wang rushed over and kicked guo down, hao hit guo's head with a brick several times, until the witness zhang came to the scene to stop him, hao stopped hurting guo. the above facts are sufficient to show that the appellant's behavior was out of revenge to hurt guo, and was not in the nature of defending against guo's injury.

the second-instance court did not accept hao's excuses and defenses, including that "he left the east gate of the community and walked in the same direction as guo to go to the hospital for medical treatment"; that guo ran away in order to find tools to hurt hao again; and that his relatives did not give guo good treatment after he was injured and that delayed treatment was the main cause of his death.

in the end, the second-instance court held that hao and wang intentionally injured others and caused their death, and their actions constituted the crime of intentional injury. the original court's conviction was accurate and the sentence was appropriate. therefore, the appeals of hao and wang were rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

regarding the court's trial results, hao's family believes that the eyewitness testimony cannot explain why hao had blunt injuries on his face that could be caused by a brick; and who was the first to inflict the injury in the second conflict? the two defendants' defenses conflict with the witness testimony. "he (the court) said that in the second stage, guo had already run away and the injury to hao was over. it was hao who caught up with guo and started to beat and scold guo. it said that after wang rushed over and kicked guo down, hao hit guo's head with a brick several times. then where did hao's cheekbone injury come from? the public security agency's appraisal report wrote that blunt instruments could cause hao's cheekbone fracture, right? and wang also saw guo hitting hao with a brick in his hand."

in response, the defense lawyers for hao and wang both told red star news that they would continue to appeal to the higher court.