One day in January 2017, at 1 a.m., Sun Qiang had just walked out of his house when he found that his motorcycle had been stolen.
After driving about 5 kilometers, Sun Qiang found his motorcycle, which was being ridden by a man and galloped, and Sun Qiang immediately accelerated to catch up.
Sun Qiang forced the motorcycle to stop with a speeding turn, both cars were damaged, Wang Leping, who stole the car, was injured, hospitalized for 19,000 yuan, and was identified as a grade 10 disability.
After the accident, the traffic police department issued a certificate, with Sun Qiang being primarily responsible and Wang Leping secondarily responsible.
At the same time, the police also launched an investigation into Wang Leping's theft, and found that Wang Leping had 3 other thefts.
In August 2017, Wang Leping was arrested, and in October of the same year, Wang Leping was sentenced to one year and nine months.
In 2019, after Wang Leping was released from prison, he filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that Sun Qiang and the insurance company compensate him for various losses totaling 170,000 yuan.
The court of first instance held that Sun Qiang was obviously at fault for stealing the motorcycle in order to recover his motorcycle, which caused the accident, and found that Wang Leping should bear 90% of the responsibility and Sun Qiang should bear 10% of the responsibility.
The court ruled in the first instance: the insurance company compensated Wang Leping 115,000 yuan, and Sun Qiang compensated Wang Leping 1,255 yuan.
Sun Qiang felt that more than 1,000 yuan did not matter, so he did not appeal.
But Wang Leping and the insurance company were not satisfied and both appealed.
The court of second instance held that:
In order to protect personal property and stop theft and infringement, Sun Qiang is justified, should affirm and support, is a legitimate defense, does not exceed the necessary limit, is not at fault, and should not bear civil liability. Similarly, insurance companies should not be liable for insurance liability.
The court's second-instance judgment: all of Wang Leping's claims were dismissed!
The editor can't help it, first like it.
A similar case occurred in Lanzhou City, Gansu Province.
On October 19, 2013, Wang Gang drove a car, dragging his wife and children along a riverside road, and temporarily stopped the car because the child wanted to go to the toilet.
After several people got out of the car, they did not lock the door, and a few seconds later, Wang Gang suddenly heard a noise, and when he turned around, he found a man named Lin Qinghui running with a bag.
Wang Gang quickly checked the inside of the car and found that his wife's handbag was missing.
At this time, Lin Qinghui had already got on the motorcycle driven by another man named Cheng Lin, and was driving away quickly, Wang Gang quickly let his wife and children get into the car, turned the car around and began to catch up.
Cheng Lin and the two saw the owner chasing, did not stop, but accelerated to escape, and kept changing direction, wanting to get rid of the chase, Wang Gang could only increase the speed to 40 kilometers per hour, continue to chase the motorcycle, and chased about 1 km, the car collided with the rear of the motorcycle.
Lin Qinghui died on the spot, Wang Gang called 110 and 120 at the first time, and later, Cheng Lin died after ineffective rescue.
The court of first instance held that:
Wang Gang believed that Lin Qingshui and Chenglin stole their own property, chased after them with their cars, and knew that hitting the motorcycle might cause casualties to others, and still drove over the motorcycle of the two people, resulting in the death of two people, causing serious consequences, constituting the crime of intentional injury.
However, Wang Gang was able to call the police in time after the case and was being dealt with, which was a voluntary surrender and could be punished lightly.
Verdict: Wang Gang committed the crime of intentional injury, life imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for life, and compensation of 150,000 yuan for economic losses to the families of the two.
After the verdict was pronounced, Wang Gang was not satisfied and appealed.
After careful trial and analysis, the court of second instance held that:
First, Wang Gang's collision with people cannot be considered intentional.
After the case, during the police investigation, Wang Gang admitted that he was intentional, but denied it at the first trial, so Wang Gang's confession alone cannot determine subjective intention.
Second, after investigation, the motorcycle has been changing direction in order to get rid of the chase while driving, Wang Gang could not handle it, and there was a collision, and there was no factual basis for subjective intention.
Third, while chasing after him, Wang Gang asked his wife to call the police, explaining that Wang Gang's subjective purpose was to return his wife's bag, and there was indeed a personal important property in the bag, so Wang Gang did not pursue the victim's casualties.
Looking at the whole case, Wang Gang's purpose was to return his legitimate belongings, and chasing a motorcycle in violation of traffic laws was a crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods, and the first instance found that the crime of intentional injury was inaccurate.
After court mediation, Wang Gang reached a settlement agreement with the relatives of the deceased two people for the civil part, and promptly compensated 120,000 yuan.
Considering that Wang Gang turned himself in, and the two victims were seriously at fault in the case, in the end:
Wang Gang was sentenced to five years in prison.
epilogue
The law of the world, the heavenly reason, the human condition.
In these two cases, if the judgment of the two defendants is too serious, it is equivalent to encouraging crime, and it will make everyone worry about stopping illegal crimes and protecting their personal and property safety.
The court's judgment also reflects the professional responsibility of safeguarding fairness and justice, embodies the positive social value orientation, and leads the good atmosphere of righteousness and courage, and once again praises the judges!
What are your thoughts on the above two cases? Welcome to leave a message to discuss.
(In order to protect the privacy of the parties, the characters in the article are pseudonyms)