Yang Guodong's case of releasing false dangerous substances
1. Basic facts of the case
Defendant Yang Guodong, male, 27 years old, from Dengzhou City, Henan Province, was arrested on February 28, 2002 on suspicion of committing the crime of disrupting social order by discharging toxic and harmful substances.
The People's Procuratorate of Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality, prosecuted the defendant Yang Guodong for the crime of distributing false dangerous substances to the Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing Municipality.
The Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing Municipality ascertained through open trial that:
At the beginning of 2002, there was a rumor in Beijing that AIDS patients had secretly pricked innocent people with needles carrying HIV blood in order to retaliate against society, causing public panic. During this period, the defendant Yang Guodong, who had come to Beijing from other places to work, became resentful because his girlfriend broke up with him. At about 2 p.m. on February 10, 2002, Yang Guodong took bus No. 28 bound for Dongdaqiao at Panjiayuan Station in Chaoyang District, Beijing, carrying a wooden iron cone, and stabbed the left leg of Du Moumou, a female passenger who looked like his girlfriend, with an iron cone. After the incident of Yang Guodong stabbing someone on the bus occurred and spread, the misinformation not only caused great psychological pressure on the victim and affected his normal life and work, but was also used as an example to verify that AIDS patients took revenge on society, causing a bad impact on society.
Defendant Yang Guodong argued that he did not know that there were rumors in society about the spread of AIDS by "pricking needles", and that the reason why he stabbed the victim Du XX was because his girlfriend broke up with him and resented him, and Du was similar to his girlfriend.
After trial, the Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court held that the available evidence in this case could not prove that the defendant Yang Guodong was aware of the news of the spread of AIDS by "pricking needles" in Beijing before the case occurred, and that it had the purpose of creating a false atmosphere of terror, and that Yang Guodong's act of stabbing others with an iron cone was inconsistent with the objective aspects of the crime of distributing false dangerous substances, so it did not constitute the crime of distributing false dangerous substances. The charges charged by the public prosecution cannot be established. However, defendant Yang Guodong arbitrarily stabbed others in a public place with an iron cone, which was a cause for trouble, and the circumstances were heinous, and his conduct had disrupted social order, objectively causing a relatively large vile social impact, and constituted the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. In accordance with the provisions of Article 293, Paragraph 1 and Article 64 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the following verdict was rendered on 28 April 2002: Defendant Yang Guodong was guilty of picking quarrels and provoking troubles and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment.
After the first-instance judgment was announced, within the statutory time limit, the defendant Yang Guodong did not appeal, and the public prosecution did not protest, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
Second, the main issues
Does stabbing a person with an awl in a public place to create a frightening atmosphere constitute the crime of distributing false dangerous substances?
After the case, there were three different opinions on how to deal with it:
The first opinion holds that the defendant's conduct complies with the provisions of Article 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment (3) and constitutes the crime of distributing false dangerous substances. This is because the defendant should have known that there were rumors in society at that time that "needles" were spreading AIDS, but they followed suit and took the opportunity to create a climate of terror and disrupt social order, causing relatively serious social consequences.
The second opinion held that the defendant's conduct did not constitute a crime. Because there is no evidence to prove that the defendant deliberately created a false atmosphere of terror, the defendant used a solid "awl", which could not have stored the substance, and there was no so-called "drop-off" problem. Although the defendant's conduct is a certain danger to society, the defendant should be acquitted in accordance with the principle of legality of crime that "no crime is not a crime unless expressly provided for in the law".
The third opinion holds that the defendant's conduct does not meet the constitutive elements of the crime of distributing false dangerous substances, but the defendant's conduct occurred in a specific period and under a specific background, objectively has a greater harm to society, and has actually caused a vile impact, and meets the constitutive elements of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles, and should be convicted and punished as the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles.
III. Grounds for the Trial
First, the defendant's conduct did not constitute the crime of distributing false dangerous substances. This is because: First, in terms of the subjectivity of the crime, the existing evidence in this case cannot prove that the defendant Yang Guodong knew or should have known about the rumors that there was a "needle" in society to spread AIDS, and it cannot prove that Yang Guodong used an iron cone to stab people with the purpose of deliberately creating social panic. The defendant in this case came to Beijing from other places to work, and the witnesses in this case also testified that the defendant was usually silent and relatively withdrawn, so it is entirely possible that the defendant did not know about the rumors of "needle pricking" in society. Defendant Yang Guodong has always denied that he knows about the rumors circulating in society that "needle pricking" spreads AIDS, and has always denied the prosecution's accusation that he used an awl to stab people by using the news to create a terrifying atmosphere. Yang Guodong confessed that the reason why he stabbed the victim Du Moumou was because his girlfriend broke up with him and had resentment, and Du was similar to his girlfriend, and it was verified that it was indeed true. In the case of reasonable doubt, the judge should and can only make a choice in favor of the defendant, and cannot and should not make inferences that are not supported by evidence and are unfavorable to the defendant, that is, when the defendant does not know or should know that there are rumors of "needle pricking" spreading AIDS in society, it cannot be determined that the defendant subjectively has the purpose of creating social panic. Therefore, the defendant did not have the subjective elements of the crime of distributing false dangerous substances. Second, in terms of the objective aspect of the crime, Yang Guodong's behavior of stabbing people with an iron cone does not meet the "release" of the crime of releasing false dangerous substances as provided for in Article 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment (3). The criminal tool used by Yang Guodong was a solid awl, which could not store any substances, and there was no problem of "delivery". In summary, the defendant's conduct in this case did not meet the constitutive elements and legislative intent of the crime of distributing false dangerous substances, so it could not be convicted and punished for this crime.
Second, defendant Yang Guodong's conduct constituted the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. The reasons are: First, Yang Guodong's behavior is quite harmful to society. Considerable social harmfulness is an essential characteristic of crime. The defendant in this case stabbed the young woman's leg with an awl on a bus, although it did not cause serious consequences to the victim's body and did not meet the criteria for minor injuries. However, in the particular circumstances of the time, the defendant's conduct had a great impact not only on the victim but also on society. At that time, the spread of AIDS by "needles" spread in the society, which caused panic among social groups, especially women, for fear that they would become victims. The defendant in this case stabbed a person with an awl in a crowded and sensitive place like a bus, which is very similar to the incident of needle pricking rumored in the community, and it is easy for people to mistake it for someone to "stick a needle" to spread AIDS. After the incident, although the victim was clarified, he still suffered greater psychological pressure, and was even misunderstood and alienated by relatives, friends, and colleagues. The passengers on the bus spread the information (some of them were misinformation or added fuel to the fire) after the incident, as an example of the "needle" rumor, which objectively played a role in fueling the panic psychology of the society. Therefore, the defendant's conduct was more harmful to society. Second, Yang Guodong's conduct meets the characteristics of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. The crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles is a crime decomposed from the crime of hooliganism in the original Criminal Law, which refers to acts of wantonly provoking, arbitrarily beating or harassing others, or arbitrarily destroying or occupying public or private property, or causing a disturbance in a public place, seriously disrupting social order, and is a crime of disrupting public order. The new Criminal Law stipulates four types of criminal circumstances for the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles, which comprehensively include various modes of picking quarrels and provoking troubles, that is, arbitrarily beating others; chasing, intercepting, or verbally abusing others; forcibly or arbitrarily destroying or taking possession of public or private property; Causing a disturbance in a public place, causing serious disorder in a public place. As long as a person commits any of the above-mentioned conduct, and the circumstances are heinous or the consequences are serious, the objective elements of the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles are met. The defendant in this case developed an unhealthy psychology because he was abandoned by his girlfriend, caused trouble for no reason, stabbed others with an awl, and infringed on others' bodies, which is the same type as "randomly beating others" to disrupt social order. Although the consequences of the injury were not serious, because the defendant used specific methods in a specific context, and chose to commit the crime in a specific place, a place where people are concentrated, not only caused greater psychological pressure on the victim, caused chaos in the bus order at the time of the crime, and objectively produced a bad social impact after the crime, which is also a "heinous circumstance." ”
To sum up, we believe that the court of first instance was able to correct the public prosecution's accusation against the defendant for the crime of distributing false dangerous substances in an attitude of seeking truth from facts, and at the same time, considering that the defendant's harmful acts in this case were carried out under a specific background, on a specific occasion, and in a specific manner, and that they were particularly harmful to society, it was correct to sentence him to one year's imprisonment for the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble.