Introduction: Criminal complaints refer to complaints against the criminal handling decision of the People's Procuratorate that terminates the litigation and against the legally effective criminal judgments and rulings of the People's Court (including criminal and civil judgments and rulings). Below are the sample essays I have collected for you, I hope they will be helpful to you. Criminal Complaint_Part 1:

Complainant: Name, gender, age, ethnicity, place of origin, occupation, address. (If the complainant in a criminal case is in custody, the place of detention should also be stated; if the defendant's defender, relatives, or other citizens are complaining, the complainant's name, occupation, and relationship with the defendant should be stated, and a paragraph introducing the defendant should be added. personal basic situation).

The other party: name, gender, age, ethnicity, place of origin, occupation, and address.

Due to one case, the complainant was dissatisfied with the Criminal (Civil) Judgment No.

The reasons and requests for the appeal are as follows:

__________ ________

Sincerely yours

People’s Court

Appellant: (Signed and sealed)

Criminal Complaint_Part 2 of ?Year?Month?Date:

Complainant: Li xhua, male, 32 years old, Han nationality, place of origin: A native of Chongqing City, he worked in Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province before his arrest. He is currently serving his sentence in the Fourth Ward of Gamilik Prison of the Third Agricultural Division of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps. < /p>

Due to a robbery case, the complainant appealed against the Guangdong Provincial Higher People’s Court’s (1996) Criminal Judgment No.

The complainant believed that the original judgment contained errors in fact determination, litigation procedures, and application of law, which resulted in excessive sentencing. The complainant applied to initiate trial supervision procedures for a new trial to correct the erroneous judgment.

Facts and reasons for the complaint:

1. Fact identification: The complainant had meritorious service, but the judgment did not confirm it.

Both "Interrogation Transcripts" of both trials recorded the meritorious circumstances proposed by the complainant in leading police officers from Shenzhen Dongzhou Police Station to arrest Li Haiquan (who was impersonating Li Haiyong at the time). The complainant knew Li Haiquan's uncle at the time and knew that he often visited his uncle's place, so he took the public security officers to his uncle's place to arrest him, and informed the public security officers that Li Haiyong was his younger brother's name and Li Haiquan was his real name. However, the two-instance judgments did not mention this, nor did they find that the complainant had committed meritorious crimes.

According to the first paragraph of Article 68 of the Criminal Law, criminals who "have performed meritorious services may be given a lighter or reduced punishment." In addition, according to Article 5 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws on Surrender and Meritorious Service" (April 17, 1998, Fa Interpretation No. 19988), criminals who report and expose other people's criminal behavior after being brought to the case shall Including "...assisting the judicial organs to arrest other criminal suspects (including co-defendants);...should be deemed to have performed meritorious services." If this sentencing consideration circumstance is recognized, the complainant's sentence will be is significant.

2. Litigation procedures: The court of second instance did not appoint a defender for the complainant in accordance with the law.

Although there was no trial in the second instance of this case, according to the judgment of the second instance: "After reviewing the files, interrogating the defendant, and listening to the opinions of the lawyers, this court believed that the facts were clear and decided not to open a trial. ,..." The complainant did not retain a defender in both the first and second trials. Without a lawyer's defense opinions, the complainant was unable to obtain effective legal assistance in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the court of second instance did not appoint a defender for the complainant, which seriously violated the legal procedures and affected the correct judgment of the case.

In this case, co-defendants Li Guanghua and Han Jinsong both confessed that the complainant was the "organizer and proposer", and the lawyers hired by the two in the first instance trial (the two defenders Xiang Yan and Shen Yuangui were both lawyers from Wanxian County, Sichuan Province) The firm's lawyer) also placed the blame on the complainant, making the following defenses of the complainant weak:

1 According to the second-instance judgment, Li Guanghua "reported clues about other people's crimes, which were verified by the first-instance court to be untrue." It can be seen that Li Guanghua reduced the punishment and did not hesitate to falsely accuse others. Naturally, he would also falsely accuse others of being the principal culprit;

2. Han Jinsong had been warned by the complainant for hiding stolen goods, so he held a grudge. He did not rule out the possibility of falsely accusing the complainant. Possible;

3 The complainant only participated in one robbery and was the first offender. It is difficult to believe that the complainant is an "organizer and proposer".

3. Application of law:

1. The second-instance judgment applied Article 12 of the Criminal Law, but reached a wrong result in the application of law.

The central meaning of Article 12 of the "Criminal Law" is the principle of "both old and lenient". The Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Article 12 of the Criminal Law" (December 31, 1997 Article 3 of the Legal Interpretation No. 199712 of the People's Republic of China (FJJ) 1997) stipulates: "When a criminal case that occurred before September 30, 1997 is tried after October 1, 1997, if the standards for conviction and sentencing and the statutory penalty stipulated in the criminal law are the same as those in the criminal law before the revision, The criminal law before the amendment should be applied. "The second-instance judgment concluded that the 1979 Criminal Law should be applied.

Although the statutory penalty in Article 263 of the "Criminal Law" is the same as the statutory penalty in Article 150 of the 1979 "Criminal Law", the second instance judgment ignored the provisions of the two criminal laws regarding the principal offender. The standards for conviction and sentencing are different. Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the 1979 Criminal Law stipulates, "The principal offender shall be severely punished, except as provided in the sub-provisions of this law." Therefore, the second instance judgment stated in the reasons for the judgment of the complainant: "Although He only robbed once, but he was the organizer and proposer in the robbery, so he should be sentenced to life imprisonment." However, in the 1997 "Criminal Law", "the circumstances that should be severely punished" are statutory sentencing circumstances. The 34 "circumstances that should be severely punished" stipulated in the General Provisions of the Criminal Law and the Special Provisions of the Criminal Law do not include the principal offender, and are only stipulated in Article 26, Paragraph 4. ...The principal offender shall be punished according to all the crimes in which he participated, organized or directed. " Therefore, the court of second instance was wrong to apply the 1979 Criminal Law, and the 1997 New Criminal Law should be applied. .

2. According to the 1997 Criminal Law, the sentence imposed on the complainant in the second instance judgment was obviously abnormally severe.

1 According to the provisions of Article 263 of the 1997 Criminal Law, under the premise that the second-instance judgment considered the complainant to be the main culprit, the complainant only met the requirement of "more than 10 years" because of the "huge amount". Fixed-term imprisonment, life imprisonment or death penalty, and a fine or confiscation of property" is the option after the fourth item in the statutory sentencing circumstances.

According to the findings of the case facts in the first and second instance judgments, the complainant joined some criminals after they had already committed crimes. He is a first-time offender and cannot be the organizer of the same crime. The complainant has not harmed anyone. Despite being the victim, the complainant actually did not receive a share of the stolen money commensurate with his status as "organization and proposer". Excluding a Rolex watch worth RMB 25,000 that was hidden privately by the co-accused Han Jinsong, the total value of the stolen money in the same crime committed by the complainant was only RMB 22,259 (47,259 yuan - 25,000 yuan = 22,259 yuan).

2 The second-instance judgment contains inconsistent statements on the circumstances that will determine the complainant’s sentencing. The verdict stated at the beginning that "Although the complainant only robbed once, he was the organizer and promoter of the robbery and should be sentenced to life imprisonment severely." It later stated that "the appeal grounds of each appellant and the defendant in the original trial are untenable and should be dismissed." "However, according to the specific circumstances of this case, except for the appellants Cheng Dejun, Li Guanghua, Han Xiaowen and the defendant in the original trial Li Haiquan, the other appellants and defendants in the original trial who committed the crime of robbery can be given a lighter punishment." However, the judgment ultimately sentenced the complainant to life imprisonment and absolute Not a lenient punishment, but a severe punishment.

In summary, the complainant believes that the (1996) Guangdong High Court Judgment No. The person hereby applies to initiate trial supervision procedures in accordance with the law, conduct a new trial, and correct the wrong judgment.