"The two of us know each other, there is no money transaction, not a prostitute!" In Jinan, Shandong, the man Bai Mou and his friend Lao Yu and others sang and drank in the KTV and played until late at night. After the end of the scene, Bai Mou took it

"The two of us know each other, there is no money transaction, not a prostitute!" In Jinan, Shandong, the man Bai Mou and his friend Lao Yu and others sang and drank in the KTV and played until late at night. After the break, Bai Mou took the woman Xiao Wang to open a room in the hotel, and his friend was old enough to be responsible for buying a drink list.

Just when Bai and Xiao Wang had a relationship, they suddenly encountered a police inspection. After investigation, the police believed that Bai was prostituting, because Bai and Xiao Wang were not boyfriend and girlfriend, and Bai's friends had old enough to pay for prostitution on their behalf. Ignoring Bai's explanation, the police detained Bai for 15 days and fined him 5,000 yuan.

Bai was not satisfied with the punishment decision and submitted an administrative reconsideration, but the original punishment decision was upheld. So Bai filed a paper complaint and sued the public security organs in court. (Source: Jinan Licheng District Court)

Prostitution is the act of having an improper relationship between the same sex or the opposite sex in exchange for money or property. According to the Provisions of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law, whoever engages in prostitution shall be detained for 10 to 15 days and may also be fined not more than 5,000 yuan.

In this case, the police detained Bai for 15 days and fined him 5,000 yuan, which is a top punishment.

In judicial practice, the police rarely make decisions on top punishment. This is mainly because after the prostitutes and the runaway women are caught, because of their lack of heart, they will take the initiative to admit their mistakes and admit punishment.

But Bai always believes that his behavior is not prostitution, and refuses to admit mistakes and accept punishment. Therefore, the police decided to give Bai a top punishment.

Then why is Bai so insistent? Is Bai's behavior not a prostitute?

Since this case is an administrative lawsuit, according to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law, the defendant bears the burden of proof for the administrative acts he has committed. Therefore, the police submitted two pieces of evidence:

1. Bai and Xiao Wang are not boyfriend and girlfriend, but they opened a room in the hotel and had a relationship;

2, Bai's friend Lao Yu transferred 1212 yuan to KTV, which is the prostitute paid by Bai on behalf of the old man.

Some people think that the punishment of the police has a certain reason, not a boyfriend and girlfriend relationship, how can there be a relationship? Moreover, the old Man paid the prostitute on his behalf, which looked like a prostitute no matter how it was.

Bai mou naturally expressed dissatisfaction with the evidence submitted by the police, and he issued his own cross-examination opinion:

1. Although he and Xiao Wang are not boyfriend and girlfriend, the two know each other, and the two sides have not negotiated the price and have not paid any money;

2. On the day of the incident, he and Lao Yu and others spent a total of more than 6,000 yuan. The old Yu is responsible for paying the bill, this 1212 yuan is liquor money, and the beneficiary is a liquor wholesale supermarket.

At the scene of the trial, Lao Yu appeared in court as a witness to testify for Bai. At the same time, another party, Xiao Wang, also said that no money was collected, and there was no fact of money transaction.

After listening to the statements of both parties, the court held that the facts of the police's punishment decision were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, so it ruled to revoke the police punishment decision. According to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law, if the main evidence of a specific administrative act is insufficient, the court shall make a judgment to revoke it.

I think the court's decision is very fair and just. As an administrative organ, the police should make an administrative punishment decision when the evidence is conclusive, rather than punishing it on the basis of a high degree of possibility alone.

In this case, the evidence provided by the police clearly lacked the fact of the money transaction, and the police did not supplement the evidence afterwards. Therefore, I think that the police's decision to punish is too subjective and does not respect objective facts.

After learning the outcome of the case, many netizens expressed support for the judge's judgment and praised the judge. Why is it that in such a small administrative litigation case, netizens praise the judge so much?

I think this is mainly in real life, "the people to win the official" is really too difficult! However, I believe that with the continuous strengthening of the mainland's administrative system according to law, sooner or later public power will be put into the cage of the system.

At the same time, we also hope that every citizen, when his or her rights are violated, even if the other party is a public power organ, should also summon up the courage to use legal weapons to protect their rights and interests.

@Open Legal Class What do you think about this case? Follow me and learn more about the law.

-------------------------------

#Jinan Headline##Jinan##普法行动 #