The second-instance criminal ruling of Feng Jianqiu’s corruption and bribery case

Date: 2016-10-17

Court: Changsha Intermediate People’s Court of Hunan Province

Case number: (2016) Xiang 01 Xingzhong No. 923

The former public prosecutor’s office, Changsha Yuelu District People’s Procuratorate.

The appellant (defendant in the original trial) Feng Jianqiu, male, was born in Miluo City, Hunan Province on November 6, 1974. He is Han nationality and has a university education. Before his arrest, he was a staff member of the Urban Construction and Development Company of Yuelu District, Changsha City. His registered permanent residence The location is Yuelu District, Changsha City, Hunan Province. I live in Yuelu District, Changsha City, Hunan Province. He was criminally detained on July 1, 2015, on suspicion of abuse of power, bribery, and corruption, and was arrested on July 16 of the same year. He is currently detained at the Changsha No. 1 Detention Center. The defendant in the original trial, Yang Xin, female, was born in Changsha City, Hunan Province on September 14, 1982. She is of Han nationality and has a technical secondary school education. Before her arrest, she was a temporary employee of the Wangyuehu Street Office in Yuelu District, Changsha City. She lived in Furong District, Changsha City, Hunan Province. He was criminally detained on July 1, 2015, on suspicion of abuse of power, bribery, and corruption, and was arrested on July 16 of the same year. He is currently detained at Changsha No. 4 Detention Center. The People's Court of Yuelu District, Changsha City heard the case in which the People's Procuratorate of Yuelu District, Changsha City accused the original defendants Feng Jianqiu and Yang Xin of committing bribery and corruption, and made a decision on July 28, 2016 (2015) Yue Xingchuzi Criminal Judgment No. 834. Feng Jianqiu, the defendant in the original trial, refused to accept the verdict and appealed. After accepting the case on August 31, 2016, this court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law. After reviewing the files and interrogating the defendants in the original trial, we believed that the facts of the case were clear and decided not to hold a trial. The trial is now concluded. The original judgment found that in December 2009, the office meeting of the Yuelu District Committee decided to establish a demolition headquarters for the Shantytown Renovation Project in Qingwan Town. From 2011 to 2012, the defendant Yang Xin was a temporary staff member of the demolition business team of the Expropriation Headquarters of the Shanty Town House Renovation Project in Wangyuehu Street Office, Yuelu District, Changsha City. The defendant Feng Jianqiu is a staff member of the Urban Construction and Development Company of Yuelu District, Changsha City. In order to make money, the two defendants took advantage of defendant Yang Xin's position to commit the following facts: 1. Facts about accepting bribes. At the end of 2011, defendant Feng Jianqiu, after accepting the request from Tang Mou, a householder who had demolished his private house in the shanty town of Qingwan Town, and Tang Mou A verbal agreement was reached that Tang would give Feng Jianqiu 500,000 yuan in benefits if he could receive 8 million yuan in demolition compensation. Afterwards, the defendant Feng Jianqiu found the defendant Yang Xin and planned to use the defendant Yang Xin's position to obtain the above-mentioned demolition benefits for Tang. He told the defendant Yang Xin that if the matter could be accomplished, Tang would give 300,000 yuan to express his gratitude. The two parties People form a consensus. Under the instruction of the defendant Feng Jianqiu, the defendant Yang Xin took the initiative to apply to the person in charge of the headquarters to come to negotiate the demolition task of a household in Tang Dynasty that had signed an agreement, and received approval. During the door-to-door demolition negotiation process, Tang never showed up. Instead, Feng Jianqiu came forward to contact Yang Xin and relayed Tang's opinion not to demolish the property for 8 million yuan. Under the instruction of the defendant Feng Jianqiu, the defendant Yang Xin actively coordinated with the relevant personnel of the headquarters and the investor Changsha Rail Group, and finally reached a preliminary agreement on meeting the conditions for demolition compensation of 8 million yuan proposed by Tang. Afterwards, the defendant Yang Xin handed two blank sets of demolition compensation agreements to the defendant Feng Jianqiu. The defendant Feng Jianqiu met Tang at the Huazhilin Tea House on Tongzipo Road, informed Tang of the above matters, and asked Tang to go first. The above two sets of agreements were signed by the names of Tang and Tang's mother Yuan respectively. Tang signed on the spot but did not write down the time, and gave the defendant Feng Jianqiu RMB 200,000 in cash. The defendant Feng Jianqiu accepted it without telling the defendant. Yang Xin. Afterwards, the demolition and expropriation headquarters divided the demolition and expropriation information of Tang household into two households, Tang and Yuan, and produced two demolition compensation agreements and attachments. Defendant Yang Xin participated in the production. On April 28, 2012, the defendant Yang Xin assisted Tang Biao in taking out the demolition money deposit book with Tang's name on it at the Wangyue Lake Subdistrict Office in Yuelu District, Changsha City. Tang Biao then withdrew 10 yuan from the Wangyue Lake Pilot District Rural Commercial Bank. Afterwards, Tang met the defendant Feng Jianqiu at the New Bund and gave him 100,000 yuan in cash on the spot. Then the defendant Feng Jianqiu gave 50,000 yuan of it to the defendant Yang Xin. On May 14, 2012, the defendant Yang Xin assisted Tang Biao in taking out the demolition money passbook with Yuan Qifen's name written on it and the house flipping reward passbook with the names of Tang Biao and Yuan Qifen written on it at the Wangyuehu Street Office in Yuelu District, Changsha City. Tang Biao and the defendant Feng Jianqiu together took out RMB 200,000 from the demolition compensation passbook under Yuan's name at the Shangdalong branch of the Kaifu District Rural Commercial Bank and gave it to the defendant Feng Jianqiu on the spot. The defendant Feng Jianqiu later gave 50,000 yuan out of it. The RMB was given to the defendant Yang Xin. 2. Corruption facts: In 2012, after the defendant Yang Xin and the defendant Feng Jianqiu discussed it, the defendant Yang Xin pretended to be Tang’s signature, fabricated the reasons for demolition difficulties and serious illness, and reported the case to the demolition headquarters, Wangyue Lake Street Office, and Yuelu District Civil Affairs Bureau. After submitting a written application for hardship subsidy and serious illness subsidy, the 40,000 yuan in hardship subsidy and serious illness assistance money in Tang's name was taken away, and 15,000 yuan was distributed to the defendant Feng Jianqiu.

In addition, the defendant Yang Xin separately pretended to be Yuan's signature, fabricated the reasons for demolition difficulties and serious illness, and submitted written applications for hardship subsidies and serious illness subsidies to the demolition headquarters, Wangyue Lake Sub-district Office, and Yuelu District Civil Affairs Bureau, and registered 4 persons under Yuan's name. Receive 10,000 yuan in hardship subsidies and critical illness relief funds. It was not until 2015 that the defendant Feng Jianqiu informed Tang that defendant Yang Xin had falsely received Tang’s 40,000 yuan hardship subsidy and critical illness relief fund. On the morning of June 30, 2015, the investigators took the defendant Yang Xin away for an investigation interview. On that day, the defendant Yang Xin explained the facts that the case handling unit had learned about his alleged corruption in helping Tang Mou demolish, and also explained the facts about the case. The unit has not yet learned about the situation in which he and the defendant Feng Jianqiu helped Tang Mou demolish the house and received 300,000 yuan in favors from Tang Mou. On the morning of June 30, 2015, the investigators took the defendant Feng Jianqiu away for investigation and interview. During the investigation and interview, the defendant Feng Jianqiu confessed that he helped Tang Mou demolish and received 500,000 yuan in favors from Tang Mou. The fact that it gave Yang Xin 150,000 yuan and Yang Xin gave him 15,000 yuan in demolition difficulties subsidies. In October 2015, the family members of the defendant Yang Xin returned RMB 185,000 of the embezzled money to the People's Procuratorate of Yuelu District, Changsha City on his behalf; during the trial of this court, the family members of the defendant Feng Jianqiu returned the embezzlement proceeds of RMB 185,000 to this court on their behalf. 15,000 yuan. The evidence used by the original trial judgment to determine the above-mentioned facts includes: witness testimony, documentary evidence, and the confessions and defenses of defendants Feng Jianqiu and Yang Xin. The court of first instance held that the defendants Feng Jianqiu and Yang Xin had conspired in advance to take advantage of defendant Yang Xin’s position to seek benefits for others. The two defendants received a bribe of RMB 200,000, and their actions constituted the crime of accepting bribes. Defendants Feng Jianqiu and Yang Xin jointly took advantage of defendant Yang Xin's position to embezzle 40,000 yuan in state-owned demolition subsidies. Defendant Yang Xin separately took advantage of his position to embezzle 40,000 yuan in state-owned demolition subsidies. All actions constitute the crime of corruption. This case is a crime of the same crime, in which the two defendants, ***, accepted a bribe of 300,000 yuan, and the defendant embezzled 40,000 yuan. Among the crimes of the same crime of corruption, the defendant Yang Xin was the perpetrator of the specific act. The defendant is the principal offender; the defendant Feng Jianqiu is only the one who strengthened the criminal intention and plays a secondary role. He is an accessory and should be given a lighter punishment. The two defendants were both guilty of multiple crimes and were punished concurrently. In the crime of accepting bribes, the defendant Yang Xin truthfully confessed the fact that he committed the crime of accepting bribes that the investigative agency has not yet grasped. He should be considered to have surrendered. If he sincerely repented and actively returned the stolen goods, his punishment may be reduced. In the criminal act of corruption, the defendants Yang Xin and Feng Jianqiu truthfully confessed their criminal acts, confessed, sincerely repented, and actively returned the stolen goods, so they may be given a lighter punishment. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 385, paragraph 1, Article 386, Article 382, ??paragraphs 1 and 3, and Article 388 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China Article 13, paragraphs 1 and 3, Article 25, paragraph 1, Article 26, paragraphs 1 and 4, Article 27, Article 67, paragraphs 1 and 3, Article 69 Article 42, Article 44, Article 45, Article 47, Article 52, Article 53, and Article 64, the court of first instance ruled: 1. The defendant Feng Jianqiu was found guilty of bribery and sentenced to four years in prison and fined RMB 200,000. He was sentenced to four months of criminal detention and fined RMB 100,000 for corruption. It was decided to combine the four-year sentences. and a fine of RMB 300,000; 2. The defendant Yang Xin was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a fine of RMB 150,000 for accepting bribes; and was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment and a fine of RMB 150,000 for the crime of corruption. Ten thousand yuan; it was decided to combine the execution of a fixed-term imprisonment of two years and six months and a fine of RMB 250,000; 3. The defendant Feng Jianqiu’s illegal gains from accepting bribes of RMB 400,000 and the defendant Yang Xin’s illegal gains from taking bribes of RMB 100,000 were recovered and turned over to The state treasury (the RMB 120,000 returned by the defendant Yang Xin has been seized and will be handled by the seizure authority, and the excess refund of RMB 20,000 will be fined.); the defendant Feng Jianqiu’s embezzlement proceeds of RMB 15,000 were recovered , the defendant Yang Xin’s illegal corruption gains of RMB 65,000 were turned over to the state treasury (the defendant Feng Jianqiu’s return of the illegal corruption gains of RMB 15,000 has been detained, and the defendant Yang Xin’s return of the illegal corruption gains of RMB 6 Fifteen thousand yuan shall be handled by the seizure authority). The defendant Feng Jianqiu in the original trial appealed and argued that: 1. He did not accept the property sent by Tang Mou, so he did not constitute the crime of accepting bribes; 2. The sentence of the original trial was too harsh. After the trial, it was found that the fact that the appellant Feng Jianqiu and the defendant Yang Xin were guilty of bribery and corruption in the original judgment was clear, and this court confirmed it. The evidence proving the above facts includes: (1) Witness Tang’s testimony and identification record prove that his demolished house is located in Qiwan Town, Yuelu District, Changsha City, and was obtained through an auction by the People’s Court of Yuelu District, Changsha City. In 2010 and 2011, during negotiations with the demolition workers, they requested a compensation of 10 million yuan, but the demolition office did not agree. In the second half of 2011, about 70% of the demolition of the shanty town in Qingwan Town had been completed. He did not understand the demolition policy, so he met Feng (namely the appellant Feng Jianqiu) through a friend and asked Feng Jianqiu to help him negotiate the demolition price as high as possible. Promising to thank Feng Jianqiu, the two exchanged phone numbers.

Later, Feng Jianqiu told him that all his houses could be compensated for more than 6 million yuan, and he wanted a fee of 300,000 yuan, but he was not satisfied with the price. One day around March 2012, the appellant Feng Jianqiu informed him that he had negotiated a price of about 8 million yuan, but that he had to deal with two households and asked him to provide the ID cards of his relatives and asked for a fee of 500,000 yuan. The appellant Feng Jianqiu asked him to pay a fee of 200,000 yuan first. After he paid the money, he brought the contract to sign. The remaining 300,000 yuan was paid to him after he received the demolition money. He was not satisfied with the compensation price and the A fee of 500,000 yuan was agreed. One night at the end of March or early April 2012, the appellant Feng Jianqiu informed him that he had brought the blank contract with him. Afterwards, the two of them drank tea at the Flower Forest next to the Yuelu Children's Palace on Tongzipo Road, and he gave him 200,000 yuan in cash and other items. He gave a copy of his mother Yuan's ID card to Feng Jianqiu, and Feng Jianqiu gave him two blank contracts, nine copies each. He signed his name and Yuan's name on the two contracts respectively, but did not sign the time and did not sign. He handed over the keys and property certificate of the house at No. 39 Qingwan Road to Feng Jianqiu. He believed that the 200,000 yuan was a deposit for Feng Jianqiu, not a loan as claimed by Feng Jianqiu, and Feng Jianqiu did not write an IOU to him. On April 27, 2012, the appellant Feng Jianqiu informed him that the passbook for the demolition funds in his name had been processed, and asked him to prepare his ID card and go to the Qiwan Town Demolition Office to collect the money the next day. On April 28, 2012, under the leadership of the appellant Feng Jianqiu's cousin (who was identified by Feng Jianqiu as the cousin named Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial), he went to the lobby of the Wangyue Lake Subdistrict Office to receive a passbook. After that, he withdrew 100,000 yuan in cash from the Changsha Pioneer Rural Commercial Bank next to Suning Appliance on the New Bund using the 80×××11 passbook he had just received, and handed it over to the appellant Feng Jianqiu near Suning Appliance on the New Bund. At that time, Feng Jianqiu He was asked to hand over the 100,000 yuan to Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, but he did not agree and gave the 100,000 yuan directly to Feng Jianqiu. On May 14, 2012, after receiving a call from the appellant Feng Jianqiu, he and Yuan Qifen went to the lobby of the Wangyue Lake Subdistrict Office. Under the leadership of Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, they received the demolition money passbook in Yuan's name. After that, the two bankbooks given to "Tang" and "Yuan" as rewards for house flipping were also handed over to them. Afterwards, he took the appellant Feng Jianqiu to the Shangdalong Branch of Kaifu Rural Commercial Bank, used the 80×××11 passbook he had just received to open an account in Yuan’s name, and took out 200,000 yuan in cash, and gave it to Feng Jianqiu. The previous and later General Secretary gave the appellant Feng Jianqiu 500,000 yuan as a thank-you fee. In addition, he did not lend money to Feng Jianqiu, and Feng Jianqiu did not return the 500,000 yuan to him. His mother, Yuan, does not have a house in Qingwan Town. As for why he can sign a demolition agreement and receive demolition money in Yuan’s name, he does not know the reason. He is only informed by the appellant Feng Jianqiu that he needs to sign two copies of No. 39 Qingwan Road. contract. After he entrusted the appellant Feng Jian to help with the demolition matter, no demolition staff contacted him, and the defendant Yang Xin in the original trial also did not negotiate the demolition price with him. He did not know that the relocated households were entitled to hardship subsidies and serious illness assistance policies. The appellant Feng Jianqiu and the defendant Yang Xin in the original trial did not inform them of this policy. They did not receive any relevant policies after receiving the 8.03 million yuan in demolition compensation. "Difficulty and serious illness subsidies, by comparing the relevant application forms presented by the investigation agency and the signatures on the power of attorney, it determined that what was written in the serious illness assistance application form, the relocation difficulty subsidy application form, and the power of attorney for Yang Xin to handle the hardship subsidy" The name "Tang" was not written by him or Yuan. In April 2015, the appellant Feng Jianqiu contacted him and informed his other cousins ??that Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, had falsely received his 40,000 yuan subsidy, and asked him to say when someone investigated that he had entrusted Yang Xin to receive the subsidy, and Yang Xin has already given the subsidy to him. (2) The testimony of witness Yuan Mou proves that there is no property in his name at No. 54 Qiwan Road, Yuelu District, Changsha City, and his son Tang Biao has a property at No. 39 Qiwan Road. During the demolition process of Tang's house, his ID card was lent to Tang for demolition purposes, and then Tang accompanied him to Wangyuehu Street and used his ID card to receive a passbook for the demolition funds. He does not belong to the demolished households on Genwan Road, and he does not understand the hardship subsidy and serious illness assistance policies for the demolished households. By comparing the relevant application forms produced by the investigative agency and the signature handwriting on the power of attorney, it determined that the name "Yuan" written in the serious illness assistance application form, the relocation difficulty subsidy application form, and the power of attorney for Yang Xin to handle difficulty subsidy was not his. Written by me or Tang. (3) Witness Chen’s testimony proved that in the first half of 2012, Wangyuehu Street, Yuelu District, Changsha City arranged for him and Fan to work together to carry out the finishing work of the shanty town reconstruction project in Qingwan Town. He and Fan had not been responsible for In the demolition work of two households, Tang and Yuan, the signature of the person in charge of the demolition agreement "Chen" on the demolition agreement of these two households is not his own signature. The signature of the calculator "Chen" is not his own signature. In the shanty town reconstruction project in Genwan Town, a demolition incentive fee for a demolition household that he was not responsible for was in his name. Shortly after he signed to receive it, someone took away the incentive fee. He did not know Yang Xin from the business team of the Shantytown Renovation Project Headquarters in Qingwan Town.

(4) The witness Fan’s testimony proved that he was not responsible for the demolition work of the two households Tang and Yuan. The signature of the person in charge of the demolition agreement of these two households "Fan" was not his own signature, and was expropriated. The signature of the calculator "Fan" on the house price compensation fee calculation form and the house decoration and decoration subsidy calculation form is not his own signature. At first, she and Chen received the rewards for the demolition of the two households. Later, Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, mentioned to them that she was responsible for the demolition of the two households. Because she was a logistics worker and was not responsible for door-to-door visits, she named her It was in his and Chen’s names, and the bonus was also in his and Chen’s names. Afterwards, the two gave the relevant demolition award and housing vacancy award to Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial. (5) The testimony of witness Yang proved that the appellant Feng Jianqiu borrowed 50,000 yuan from him around 2008 or 2009 to purchase a store. One day around 2012 or 2013, the defendant Yang Xin in the original trial gave him 50,000 yuan. It was said that Feng Jianqiu had returned the 50,000 yuan, but Feng Jianqiu himself had never returned the 50,000 yuan in person. (6) The testimony of witness Huang 1 proved that he was the husband of Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial. He had opened an account at Bank of Communications. On April 28, 2012, he could not remember whether he had deposited 40,000 yuan into his Bank of Communications account. In the account, by checking the relevant deposit receipts presented by the investigation agency, he believed that the customer signature of "Huang 1" on the deposit receipts was his own signature, but he could not remember how the 40,000 yuan was obtained. (7) The testimony of witness Liu 2 proved that starting from March 2011, the shanty town reconstruction project on Qinwan Road, Yuelu District, Changsha City entered the finalization stage. During this stage, the expropriated objects were generally compensated according to the highest standard, but they could not Beyond the scope of the policy, Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, was responsible for the collection and preliminary review of the expropriation compensation agreement. If the house to be demolished has a negative floor, according to a policy adopted by the Changsha City Demolition Office, but there is no explicit provision, the basement will be compensated as an elevated floor, and the compensation can be up to 2,800 yuan per square meter. Tang Biao's house on Qingwan Road was omitted during the investigation stage, and no one visited the house to investigate during the actual demolition process. The defendant in the original trial, Yang Xin, asked whether the logistics personnel of the command headquarters could come to the house to be responsible for the demolition, but did not clearly state that it was the demolition of Tang's family. Later, Yang Xin engaged in specific door-to-door demolition work, but she did not know what she was responsible for. One household. (8) The testimony of witness Li proved that when the shanty town reconstruction project on Qiwan Road in Yuelu District, Changsha City entered the final stage, the expropriated objects were generally compensated according to the highest standards. The defendant in the original trial, Yang Xin, was responsible for the expropriation compensation agreement. Collect and cooperate with Liu 1 and Huang 2 to conduct a preliminary review of the relevant agreement. Compensation calculations for single-family private house households that are demolished to the end of the street are generally calculated according to the policy of "renovation from residential to commercial". If the single-family private house households do not agree with the demolition price, the first step is to separate households. First, the head of the household is classified as "renovation from residential to commercial". For compensation, the remaining price will be divided into households by the immediate family members of the household head. Generally, it will be divided into two households, and the area of ??the other household will be dealt with through confirmation of rights. The second is to adjust the area of ??the household owner's "residential-to-commercial" property without dividing the household. For example, if the owner's first and second floors are legal areas, and the 3rd and 4th floors are illegal areas, then the area on the 3rd and 4th floors is calculated. Go inside the legal area on the 1st and 2nd floors. Tang Biao's house at No. 39 Qingwan Road was omitted during the investigation stage. During the actual demolition process, no one visited the house to investigate. Later, the defendant Yang Xin reported to her that Tang was her friend, but It did not specifically arrange for Yang Xin to be responsible. In the end, Yang Xin signed the demolition agreement for Tang's household. Tang's household was finally compensated 8.07 million yuan, but he did not know the specific situation. (9) Witness Zhang’s testimony proved that the accountants of the Finance Office of Wangyue Lake Subdistrict Office sent the accountants of the Finance Office of Wangyue Lake Subdistrict Office to Xiangjiang, Hunan Province for the demolition payment deposits, hardship subsidies and serious illness relief deposits of the households who were demolished in the shantytown reconstruction in Qingwan Town, Yuelu District, Changsha City. New District Rural Commercial Bank Wangyue Lake Branch handles batch processing. The passbook with the account number 80×××11 (Tang) and the passbook with the account number 80×××11 (Yuan) were both opened on June 14, 2012. The account opening amount was 20,000 yuan each, both in June 2012. It was taken away on March 19, and the person who made the withdrawal was Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial. The passbook with the account number 80×××11 (Yuan Mou) was opened on August 10, 2012. The account opening amount was 20,000 yuan. It was withdrawn on August 11, 2012. The person who made the withdrawal was Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial. The passbook with the account number 80×××11 (Tang) was opened on December 18, 2012. The account opening amount was 20,000 yuan. It was withdrawn on January 4, 2013. The person who made the withdrawal was Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial. (10) Witness Guo’s testimony proves that he is the on-site representative of the Changsha Railway Company in the expropriation and renovation of shantytowns in Qinwan Town, Yuelu District. The amount of the demolition payment must be approved by the Railway Company and must be reviewed and signed before it can be filed and allocated. Before April 2012, Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, said that Tang had a house within the demolition scope of the shanty town in Qingwan Town and asked him to help with the demolition. Afterwards, he, He and Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, went to see Tang's demolished house. After viewing the house, Yang Xin suggested that Tang wanted 8 million yuan in demolition money for the house and that he wanted to report to He. Take a stand. Later, at the request of Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, he reported to He and determined that the highest compensation for Tang’s family was about 8 million yuan.

Later, he told Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, that the Tang family could be compensated 8 million yuan. As for how Yang Xin made the agreement with the Tang family, he did not know, but at that time, the Tang family made two compensations. According to the agreement, Tang’s household’s compensation exceeds the standard and policy. The hardship subsidies and serious illness relief funds for the demolished persons are also paid by the rail company, so they are arranged by the rail company to review and check the hardship subsidies and serious illness relief. When it reviews the hardship subsidies and critical illness assistance, the sub-district leaders have basically reviewed and signed the letters according to the procedures, and each batch is about 10-20 households. When the demolition of Tang's household is completed, regardless of whether the demolished household is in difficulty or has a serious illness, each demolished household can basically apply for a hardship subsidy and serious illness assistance of 40,000 yuan. Tang's household has a demolition agreement between Tang and his mother, so they apply as two households and can apply for 80,000 yuan. (11) The testimony of witness Huang 2 proved that since the preliminary working group missed the demolition contact person of the Tang family, the defendant Yang Xin in the original trial took charge of the contact matters of the Tang family after obtaining the consent of Li. After that, Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, consulted him about the demolition price of the Tang family. He calculated or calculated the house demolition price based on the information and policy standards provided. He did not know that the Tang family was demolished as two households. The symbol does not meet the requirements. (12) The testimony of witness Liu 1 proved that in August 2011, a demolition headquarters was established for the shanty town reconstruction project in Qinwan Town, Yuelu District, Changsha City. The defendant in the original trial, Yang Xin, was a staff member of the expropriation business team. Responsible for the review and filing of the demolition compensation agreement. In 2010, the command headquarters missed Tang's family when conducting a thorough investigation. Around March 2012, Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, suggested that Tang's family was an acquaintance of hers and that she could do ideological work for the family. Later, the leader agreed to let Yang Xin was responsible for the demolition work of Tang's household. In the end, Yang Xin handled the demolition price of Tang's household, the signing of the demolition compensation agreement and the improvement of demolition materials. (13) The testimony of witness Liao proved that he served as the director of the shanty town reconstruction and expropriation headquarters office in Yuelu District, Changsha City, and concurrently as the deputy commander. Around August 2011, he was in charge of the establishment and completion of the shanty town reconstruction project in Yuelu District, Changsha City. Department, which is responsible for office work, resettlement, and hardship subsidies. In the later stage of the application for hardship subsidies and serious illness assistance for the demolished people in the shanty towns of Genwan Town, the hardship subsidies will be provided to the households, and the serious illness assistance will be provided to the person. Each household is 40,000 yuan. In order to promote the demolition work, if the demolished households apply, the staff After the report was submitted to the Resettlement Department, he signed and agreed. He was unable to distinguish the authenticity of the application materials. Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, asked him for help with the hardship subsidy and serious illness relief for the Tang family. His leader at the demolition headquarters After approval at all levels, Yang Xin’s declaration was also signed and approved. (14) Appellant Feng Jianqiu’s household registration certification materials, cadre resume, annual assessment form, work performance certificate, and Feng Jianqiu’s basic identity; he has worked in the Yuelu District Urban Construction and Development Company of Changsha City since September 1997, engaged in state-owned Land demolition work. (15) The household registration certificate of the appellant Yang Xin, the situation statement issued by the Wangyuehu Street Office in Yuelu District, Changsha City, the specific job responsibilities of Yang Xin, a temporary employee of the key office, and the temporary worker salary payment form issued by the Wangyuehu Street Urban Construction Office , Yang Xin’s basic identity; from April 2010 to April 2013, Yang Xin worked in the business group of the Expropriation Headquarters of the Shantytown Renovation Project in Qinwan Town, Yuelu District (temporary employment), responsible for file management, contract filing, etc. ; From 2010 to 2014, Yang Xin was responsible for the compilation and archiving of expropriation and demolition construction materials for key projects, the numbering and preliminary review of demolition agreements, the filing of some demolition contracts, and other tasks assigned by leaders such as key office logistics work; Yang Xin received The salary for temporary staff is 1,200 yuan per month. (16) The minutes of the office meeting on the demolition work of the Yuelu District Committee of Changsha City, Changsha City on January 6, 2010 prove that the Qiwan Town Shantytown Renovation Project was established due to the Qiwan Town Shantytown Renovation Project. Demolition headquarters. (17) Changsha City Yuelu District People's Government's decision on house expropriation, announcement on extending the implementation period of house expropriation, Changsha City Development and Reform Commission's approval of Changsha City Qiwan Town Shantytown Reconstruction Project, change of Changsha City Qiwan Town Shantytown Reconstruction Project Approval from the project construction entity, announcement on the implementation of the house expropriation, compensation and resettlement plan for the shantytown reconstruction project in Qiwan Town, urban private property rights expropriation work process, certificate of interim measures for subsidies for households with difficulty in relocation, relevant approval documents for the shanty town reconstruction project in Qiwan Town, expropriation and compensation Standard documentation. The investment and construction entity of the shanty town reconstruction project in Qingwan Town, Changsha City was Changsha Lushan Urban Construction Investment Co., Ltd., which was later changed to Changsha Rail Transit Industrial Co., Ltd. (18) The work plan of the Expropriation Headquarters of the Shanty Town Renovation Project in Genwan Town and the work plan of the Expropriation Headquarters in the final stage of the Shanty Town Renovation Project in Genwan Town prove that Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, is a member of the expropriation business team of the headquarters. The expropriation business group is responsible for the collection, preliminary review, approval, and filing of expropriation agreements. Tang, a household to be demolished, has not been assigned specific staff to be responsible for the demolition. (19) Changsha City Real Estate Transfer Application Form, Urban Housing Expropriation Compensation and Resettlement Agreement (monetary compensation method), and payment receipt prove that Tang Biao’s property on Qingwan Road was transferred by court judgment and received demolition compensation of *** 259.9055 Ten thousand yuan.

(20) The urban house expropriation compensation and resettlement agreement (monetary compensation method) and payment receipt prove that Yuan Qifen's property located at No. 54 Qiwan Road received demolition compensation totaling 5.432819 yuan. (21) The power of attorney, the serious illness and extreme poverty relief application approval form, the relocation hardship subsidy application approval form, and the payment receipt certificate were written by Tang and Yuan on May 10, 2012, authorizing Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, to have full authority to handle hardship subsidies and All power of attorney for matters related to demolition was forged by Yang Xin, and the signatures of Tang and Yuan were forged by defendant Yang Xin. Yang Xin received a total of 80,000 yuan in hardship subsidies from Tang and Yuan. (22) Regarding the signature of the staff member on the house expropriation and compensation agreement for the Tang household, the explanation proves that the staff member’s signature as “Fan” on the house demolition compensation agreement for the Tang household is not his own signature. (23) The evidence collection notice issued by the investigation agency proves that No. 54 Qiwan Road, Yuelu District, Changsha City has no registration information (no real estate registration record). (24) The transaction records of Tang’s account number 80×××11 prove that on April 27, 2012, 54,458 yuan was transferred to the account for compensation, and on May 15, 2012, 54,450 yuan was withdrawn. (25) The transaction record of Tang’s account number 80×××11 proves that 2.544597 yuan was transferred to the account for compensation on April 27, 2012. On April 28, 2012, Tang Biao went to Changsha Pioneer Rural Commercial Bank Wangyue Lake The branch has a cash discount of RMB 100,000. (26) The transaction record of Yuan’s account number 80×××11 proves that 5,328,619 yuan was transferred to this account on May 14, 2012, and there was a discount at Dalong Branch of Changsha Kaifu Rural Cooperative Bank on May 14, 2012. 200,000 yuan was withdrawn in cash, and 5.12861 million yuan was withdrawn on May 15, 2012. (27) The transaction records of Yuan’s account number 80×××11 prove that 104,200 yuan was transferred to this account on May 14, 2012, and 104,190 yuan was withdrawn from this account on May 15, 2012. (28) The transaction records of Tang’s account number 80×××11 prove that 20,000 yuan was transferred to this account on June 14, 2012, and 20,000 yuan was withdrawn from this account on June 19, 2012. (29) The transaction records of Tang’s account number 80×××11 prove that 20,000 yuan was transferred to this account on December 18, 2012, and 20,000 yuan was withdrawn from this account on January 4, 2013. (30) The transaction records of Yuan’s account number 80×××11 prove that 20,000 yuan was transferred into this account on June 14, 2012, and 20,000 yuan was withdrawn from this account on June 19, 2012. (31) The transaction records of Yuan’s account number 80×××11 prove that 20,000 yuan was transferred into this account on August 10, 2012, and 20,000 yuan was withdrawn on August 11, 2012. (32) Huang’s personal deposit receipt with account number 62×××93 proves that this account deposited 40,000 yuan at the Bank of Communications Changsha Zhongshan Road Branch on April 28, 2012. (33) Detention decision, list of seized property and documents; Hunan Province non-tax income general payment certificate proves that Yang Xin, the defendant in the original trial, returned RMB 185,000 on October 10, 2015; the appellant Feng Jian requested to return the corruption gains RMB 15,000. (34) Case filing process materials issued by the Anti-Default and Infringement Bureau of the People’s Procuratorate of Yuelu District, Changsha City.

(35) The confessions of the appellant Feng Jianqiu and the defendant Yang Xin in the original trial. They expressed their opinions on the above.