Nearly two years after the case, the Shenzhen "Parrot Case" was pronounced in the second instance yesterday, and the party Wang Peng was convicted of illegally selling rare and endangered wild animals and sentenced to two years in prison, and Wang Peng will be released on May 17, 2018. Compared with the first instance, the sentence was reduced by 3 years.
The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court said that the original judgment sentenced Wang Peng too heavily and should be corrected. Wang Peng's wife said she would consult with her lawyer to decide whether to continue filing a complaint.
━━━━━
He was released on May 17 this year
Wang Peng, 33, works in a CNC equipment factory in Shenzhen. In April 2014, a colleague picked up a single parrot in the factory area and brought it back to his dormitory. Because Wang Peng was very interested in parrots, his colleagues forwarded them. In May 2014, Wang Peng purchased a female parrot pair from online.
Since then, the two parrots have multiplied at an astonishing rate, reaching more than 40 after a year. In early April 2016, Wang Peng sold six of the parrots to his friend Xie Tianfu for about 3,000 yuan.
The results of the police investigation afterwards showed that 2 of the 6 parrots were small golden sun parrots, scientific name green-cheeked cone-tailed parrots, which were listed in the appendix of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and were protected species.
On March 30 last year, the Bao'an District People's Court of Shenzhen Sentenced Wang Peng to five years in prison and a fine of 3,000 yuan for illegally selling rare and endangered wild animals. On November 6, the second-instance trial of the case was held at the Ninth Court of the Shenzhen Intermediate Court's Criminal Trial District, and Wang Peng's defense lawyer Xu Xin defended his innocence.
Since then, the case has undergone several postponements, and finally the second-instance judgment was announced at 2:30 p.m. on March 30.
The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court found that Wang Peng's illegal acquisition and sale of rare and endangered wild parrots constituted the crime of illegally selling rare and endangered wild animals. In addition, the circumstances of the crime were "very serious" and "the crime shall be punishable by imprisonment for more than ten years, with a fine or confiscation of property". However, because most of the parrots involved in the case were domesticated and bred, the social harm of their behavior was relatively smaller than that of illegal purchases, and the sale of parrots that grew and bred in the pure wild, Wang Peng could be sentenced below the statutory sentence.
The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court decided to revoke the original judgment of the first instance and change the sentence to two years' imprisonment for Wang Peng until May 16, 2018, and a fine of 3,000 yuan. The family said they would consider whether to appeal.
The second instance supported a lighter punishment
In the first instance, the Shenzhen Bao'an Court held that "although the parrots involved in this case are domesticated, they are also 'precious and endangered wild animals' stipulated by law", so they made the above judgment.
After the verdict was pronounced, Wang Peng's lawyer Xu Xin told the Beijing News reporter that the types of parrots are complex and difficult for non-experts to understand, "not to mention Wang Peng as a parrot lover." In addition, Wang Peng's act of raising and selling self-raised parrots has not and will not infringe on precious and endangered wildlife resources, and should not continue to be found to have violated the criminal law. At the second-instance trial, Wang Peng insisted that he was unfamiliar with the relevant regulations and "did not know (selling parrots) that this was a crime."
Xu Xin said in his second-instance defense that the first-instance judgment "applied the law incorrectly and determined the facts incorrectly." Xu Xin said that it is indeed necessary to protect rare and endangered wild animals with the Criminal Law, but the breeds that Wang Peng is suspected of selling, that is, artificial variants of the artificially domesticated green-cheeked cone-tailed parrot, are widely raised and traded by the people, and their fertility is extremely strong, and they should not be identified as "precious and endangered wild animals."
The prosecution argued that, according to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases Involving the Destruction of Wildlife Resources, the "precious and endangered wild animals" stipulated in the Criminal Law include "wild animals and the above-mentioned species domesticated and bred" listed in Appendix I and Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, so Wang Peng's sale of self-raised parrots cannot change its illegal nature.
In the second-instance judgment, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court adopted the opinions of the prosecution. However, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court said that the original judgment sentenced Wang Peng too heavily and should be corrected. In addition, in view of wang Peng's claim on appeal that he was unable to take care of his son because of his illness, he proposed to sell parrots for a reason; after being arrested, he was able to take the initiative and truthfully confess to help the police solve the case, so he submitted a request for a lighter punishment, and the court of second instance also supported it.
Although the verdict is still far from the innocence claims of the defendants and defense lawyers, it is still good news for Wang Peng, who has been detained for nearly two years, after all, he will be released from prison and restored to freedom by May 17.
point of view
Changing the sentence to lighter is the law's response to common sense and human feelings
The Shenzhen "parrot case", which has attracted much social attention, has finally settled the dust. In May 2016, Wang Mou, a Shenzhen man, was criminally detained on suspicion of "illegally selling rare and endangered wild animals and their products." The court of first instance found that the two "little sun" parrots that were sold were protected by international conventions and laws, and Wang was convicted of illegally selling rare and endangered wild animals and sentenced to five years in prison. This case has aroused extensive discussion and questioning in the field of public opinion.
On the afternoon of March 30, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court pronounced a verdict in the second instance, sentencing defendant Wang Peng to two years in prison and a fine of 3,000 yuan on suspicion of illegally selling rare and endangered wild animals.
Although the verdict is still far from the innocence claims of the defendants and defense lawyers, it is still good news for Wang Peng, who has been detained for nearly two years, after all, he will be released from prison and restored to freedom by May 17. In fact, compared with the 5-year prison sentence and the fine of 3,000 yuan in the first instance, the sentence in the second instance is significantly lighter.
To be sure, in this case, exoneration is not necessarily possible until the legislation has changed substantially. The parrot family belongs to the appendix of the National Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and is included in the List of Wild Animals under National Key Protection. According to the SPC's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of the Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases Involving the Destruction of Wildlife Resources, the sale of two green-cheeked cone-tailed parrots is "punishable by fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention, and shall also be fined."
Of course, the punishment of Wang Peng by the first instance is still debatable. Compared with the usual crime of illegally selling rare and endangered wild animals, it is obviously more acceptable to give a light sentence based on discretionary circumstances such as the defendant's own animals, the sale of a small number of parrots, and the sale of self-raised parrots for the treatment of family members.
The final revision of the judgment of the second-instance trial, "placing the trial of an individual case in the context of heavenly reason, national law, and human feelings", is also a reasonable amendment to the first-instance judgment.
Examining the judicial interpretations issued nearly 20 years ago, paying close attention to the "list" and "international trade conventions", and clarifying the "precious and endangered wild animals" stipulated in the criminal law, although it is worry-free and labor-saving, it is also more "based", the problem is that it is not scientific and reasonable enough.
In fact, the "List" as a target system came into force on January 14, 1989, and the "Convention on International Trade" entered into force on July 1, 1975, the former is almost "standing", and the latter has passed the year of "no confusion". Once determined, it will remain unchanged for a long time, and it is difficult to meet the needs of dynamic wildlife protection.
China's Wildlife Protection Law stipulates that for the list of wild animals under national key protection, "the list is adjusted every five years according to the assessment situation", which reflects the legislative spirit of advancing with the times. According to the new IUCN standard system for endangered species, the parrots sold by Wang Peng are only "low-risk".
What is even more inappropriate is that the "general protection" of the judicial interpretation, for domesticated and bred animals, whether it is Appendix I or Appendix II, is equally protected as wild animals, which is inconsistent with the international practice of hierarchical protection and moderate liberalization.
In fact, in some countries and regions participating in the Convention, the domesticated and bred Appendix II wild animals can be bought and sold as long as they prove to be domesticated, let alone illegal and criminal. From the existing experience, expanding the scope of protection too much is not conducive to the breeding and protection of wild animals.
The law is a product of the zeitgeist. In the face of the current situation of frequent blame in judicial practice and a large scope of criminal crackdown, it is necessary to revise the relevant judicial interpretations as soon as possible and scientifically define the scope of "precious and endangered wild animals". Of course, the Wildlife Protection Law also needs to be adjusted in a timely manner to make it more in line with international trends and more in line with public expectations.
Beijing News reporter Wang Yuwen / Ouyang Chenyu (legal scholar)
Duty Editor Wu Yanzu Yiming