Protest Application 1

Applicant: A, male,

Applicant: B, female,

Respondent: C, male

Respondent: D, female,

The applicant and the respondent passed through Funan due to a dispute over adjacent rights of passage. The County People's Court heard the case and issued (20xx) Nan Min Yi Chu Zi "Civil Judgment No. 01301" on October 10, 20xx, 1. The respondent is ordered to have the right of way on the applicant's homestead; 2. The applicant is ordered to clear the obstacles within the above range within ten days; 3. The respondent was also ordered to pay 30,000 yuan in compensation to the applicant. The applicant was dissatisfied with this judgment and appealed to the Fuyang Intermediate Court in accordance with the law. After hearing the case, the Fuyang Intermediate Court issued (20xx) Fumin Yizhongzi No. 01282 Civil Judgment on December 15, 20xx: Item 1 of the first-instance judgment was upheld. Items 2 and 4. Item 3 of the first instance judgment is revoked.

The applicant believes that: the original judgment was wrong in determining the facts, the judge handling the case had a personal relationship in handling the case, and the judgment was extremely unfair to the applicant. Therefore, he applied to your court to file a protest in this case in accordance with the law.

Reasons for application for protest:

1. The original court’s determination that the homestead on the east side of the applicant’s house is a “public access road” was a factual error, and the respondent has no right to this fact. Right of way.

1. The court of first instance determined the above facts based on the mediation opinion of the Guankou Township People’s Mediation Committee and the certification of the Guankou Township Xiaohe Villagers Committee. In fact, the "Mediation Opinion" of the Guankou Township People's Mediation Committee was not signed by both parties and had no legal effect at all. It was obviously wrong for the original court to adopt the identified matters in the mediation opinion and use it as the basis for the judgment. As for the certificate from the Xiaohe Village Committee, since the disputed homestead is owned and managed by the Huaihe River Management Bureau and is not collectively owned by the villagers, the certificate issued by the village committee also has no legal effect.

2. The above-mentioned identification of "public access" is inconsistent with the facts admitted by the respondent in court.

During the trial, the respondent Ding admitted that when the homestead of his family was first allocated, there were only two houses in length from east to west, and the east side of his house was a terrace. After that, the slope was increased after pulling earth to fill the terrace. homestead. The east side of the applicant's house is also on a slope. After years of filling in the land, a new homestead was built. Later, because his neighbor Wang Hong asked the applicant for the homestead, the applicant paid Wang Hong a transfer fee of 3,600 yuan. The applicant submitted to the court Purchase and sale agreement. The above facts show that the open space on the east side of the house of the parties in this case is newly added land filled in by themselves, and is not a public access road reserved when allocating homesteads. Both parties in this case recognized the above-mentioned facts, but the court of first instance did not accept them, which obviously violated the principle of objective judgment of "based on facts".

3. The homesteads of the applicant and the respondent belong to the north-south boundary, and the respondent does not have the right of way to the homestead on the east side of the applicant's house.

The homestead here is the kitchen land reserved by the applicant when building a house. It is not a naturally formed north-south passage. The respondent never passed here before demolishing the old one and building a new one. The respondent had always passed from the right to the west through the public north-south passage. Now, because the neighbor on the west side built a new house from the east to the west, the passage on the west side of the respondent was blocked. In addition, the residents on the north side of the plaintiff had to pass through the public north-south passage. Until now, the construction of the house has always been to the west via public north-south lanes. The respondent could open the door on the north side of his house and then go west via the highway.

2. The court of first instance handled the case in violation of legal procedures and clearly favored the respondent.

Page 4 of the original judgment states that "the evidence that this court collects ex officio" includes:

1. The applicant's household registration certificate;

2. Checkpoint Mediation opinion letter of the Township People’s Mediation Committee;

3. Testimonies of Wu Mingcai and Guo Guoqiang;

4. On-site inspection records and inspection drawings.

Article 15 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures" and Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law "Evidence deemed necessary by the People's Court to hear the case" refers to the following situations: (1) Involving facts that may be detrimental to national interests, social public interests or the legitimate rights and interests of others; (2) Involving ex officio addition of parties, suspension of litigation, termination of litigation, avoidance and other procedural matters unrelated to substantive disputes. Article 16 Except for the circumstances specified in Article 15 of these Provisions, the people's court shall investigate and collect evidence at the request of the parties concerned. The appeal evidence materials do not fall within the scope of evidence that the People's Court investigates ex officio. The court of first instance violated the above-mentioned regulations of the Supreme Court and helped the respondent collect evidence and was obviously biased in favor of the respondent, resulting in a clearly unfair judgment.

In summary, the applicant believes that the original court found the facts wrong, the presiding judge handled the case illegally, and the judgment was unfair. According to the provisions of Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Law, the applicant petitions your court to protest this case in accordance with the law. .

Sincerely

XXX Municipal People’s Procuratorate

Applicant: A, B

Application date: XXXX, XXXX?

Protest Application 2

Applicant (the third person in the first instance, the appellant in the second instance, and the applicants in the third and fourth instances) Wang Zaiming, male, Han nationality, born on February 7, 1962. Jobless. Mailing address: Room 103, No. 26, Lane 10, Leshan Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai,

Postal code: 200030. Contact number***

Respondent (Plaintiff in the first instance, Appellee in the second instance, Respondents in the third and fourth instances) Shanghai Xingkang Property Co., Ltd.

Residence: Shanghai No. 215, Guilin East Street, Xuhui District

Legal representative: Zhuang Jieshi, general manager.

The defendant in the original trial, Shanghai Wanchun Waterproof Construction Engineering Company (formerly Jinshan County Wanchun Paint Factory)

Residence: Wanchun Village, Langxia, Jinshan District, Shanghai

Legal representative: Wang Jianguo, general manager.

(Now out of business)

Cause of action: House rental dispute

Application for protest:

Requesting the Supreme People's Procuratorate to: " Notice of the First Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China on Filing a Case (2011) Minjian Zi No. 962-1 (Attachment 1), Shanghai Xuhui District People's Court (1998) Xu Minchu Zi No. 361 Civil Judgment (Attachment) 2), Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (1999) Hu Yi Zhong Min Zhong Zi Civil Judgment No. 245 (Attachment 3), Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (1999) Hu Yi Zhong Min Jian Zi No. 221 ( Attachment 4), Shanghai Higher People’s Court (2011) Hu Gao Min Jian Zi No. 3 Civil Ruling Rejecting Retrial Application (Note: The applicant has not seen this document, let alone received it. The case number is from Attachment 1: The first court of the Supreme Court issued a notice) to file a protest. The first and second instance judgments were revoked and the judgments were changed in accordance with the law; and the execution of the auction of the applicant's only house was reversed, ending the applicant's five-year petitioning wandering life in Beijing and returning to Shanghai to live a normal, ordinary and ordinary life.

Facts and reasons:

On November 20, 2011, the applicant received a call from Vice President Li Hong of the Case Registration Division of Xuhui District Court of Shanghai, asking the applicant to submit the " "Application for Retrial"; on the 24th of the same month, the applicant submitted the "Application for Retrial" to Li Ning, the Beijing Office of the Shanghai Higher Court (located next to the filing court of the Supreme Court in Hongsi Village, Fengtai District, Beijing) in accordance with Li Hong's request.

On June 14, 2012, President Guo Weiqing and President Li Hong of the Xuhui Court were in President Guo’s office. President Guo personally handed over to the applicant: "Notice of the First Tribunal of the People’s Republic of China on the Filing of Cases" (2012) Civil Supervision Word No. 962-1 (Attachment 1).

As stated in the notice: "I am not satisfied...Shanghai Higher People's Court (2011) Hu Gao Min Jian Zi No. 3 rejected the civil ruling for retrial", this application for ruling was No one has even heard it, let alone received it. Therefore, the applicant went directly to the Shanghai High Court to request the application. Judge Xia Lianjun who received the applicant clearly informed: "The Shanghai High Court has not issued this ruling No. 3; moreover, the Shanghai High Court is dealing with the Second Case Registration Division of the Supreme Court." (There is a recording as proof. ). The applicant went to the archives room of the Shanghai High Court to inquire. Judge Zhu asked the applicant to tell the reception judge of the High Court: "If there is "zero" in the computer, they will understand" (as evidenced by the recording).

Reason: Because the applicant divorced his wife who worked at Xuhui Court in Shanghai, and happened to encounter a dispute over the house rental fee between the plaintiff and the defendant, the judge of Xuhui Court retaliated and made a wrongful judgment: "Civil Judgment" of Shanghai Xuhui Court (1998) Xu Minchu Zi No. 361 (Attachment 2), and has been passed by Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court (1999), Hu Yi Zhong Min Zhong Zi No. 245 "Civil Judgment" (Attachment 3), Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court (1999) Shanghai Yizhong Minjian Zi No. 221 (Attachment 4), adds the applicant as a third party and assumes full responsibility (Attachment 5, Xuhui Court File: 42 pages, hereinafter referred to as the file). In 2000, the applicant's only house was auctioned off by the Xuhui Court to pay off debts, and he has been homeless to this day. After 10 years of unsuccessful petitions, the applicant was forced to go to Beijing in 2010 and has been stationed in Beijing for five years now.

The subject of this case is originally the plaintiff (landlord): Shanghai Xingkang Property Co., Ltd. (formerly: Xuhui Caohejing Housing Management Office), suing the defendant (tenant): Shanghai Wanchun Waterproof Construction Engineering Company (formerly: Xuhui Caohejing Housing Management Office) Shanghai Jinshan Wanchun Paint Factory) house rental dispute (Attachment 6: Indictment).

This case is a violation of the law: 1. The subject is wrong. This case is a house leasing contract between two legal persons (Attachment 6: Plaintiff’s Indictment, Files 1, 2, and 3). It is also the subsequent lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant after the expiration of the first lease contract (Annex 7: Business license time, file 26); and the identity of the applicant in the first and second instance judgments was confirmed as: "Working at Shanghai Wanchun Waterproof Construction Engineering Company" "staff. However, he was illegally added as a third party in the case (Appendix 5) and assumed full responsibility for the case (Appendix 2, File 59: First Instance Judgment).

2. Destroy the truth and falsify the court trial transcripts. The first court session was held on May 12, 1998, presided over by Judge Tang Huigen. The applicant appeared in court as the defendant’s attorney. This was also the first and only time the applicant saw Judge Tang (Attachment 8: Service Reply Receipt Clerk Qu As evidenced by the notes in Hongjing's preparation column, file: page 23). However, in the file, the transcript of the trial presided over by Tang Huigen was tampered with: the trial session was held on June 8, 1998, instead of May 12, and the defendant was absent (Attachment 9, "Trial Session" transcript, file: pages 34, 35, 36, and 37) .

3. The presiding judge Jin Yi illegally deprived the defendant and third party of their right to apply for jurisdiction (Attachment 10: Transcript of the second trial, file: 50 pages). Because the third party’s registered residence and the defendant’s location were in the Jinshan District (formerly Jinshan County) area, the defendant and the third party submitted written jurisdiction objection applications on the spot during the trial. 1. The application has disappeared from the file; 2. The presiding judge Jin Yi overstepped his authority to exercise the powers of the president and was rejected in court; moreover, the Xuhui Court's procedures were illegal: the original judge Tang Huigen was replaced by Jin Yi, and the court failed to do so. No mention was made of explaining the reasons or issuing a ruling in court.

4. In house rental disputes, the judgment "applies" to Article 58, paragraph 1, item 5 of the "General Principles of the People's Republic of China and Civil Law": "Violation of law or social public interests" "; Item 7: "Concealing illegal purposes in legal forms" (Appendix 3 of the judgment, file page 59), the second and third instance officials defended each other and upheld the original verdict.

5. Judicial procedures are illegal.

The so-called: "Constitute a collegial panel in accordance with the law" (Appendix 2: Judgment, file page 59) Judges Zhang Dingchen and Luo Tao, so far the applicant still does not know whether he is a man? Or a woman? Is he fat? Or thin? Is he a human or a ghost?

6. Judge Jin Yi falsely used the applicant to issue a delivery receipt (Attachment 11, File 23).

Therefore, I request your court to protest in accordance with the law and return the applicant to judicial fairness, justice and justice!

Sincerely,

The People’s Republic of China and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China

Applicant: Wang Zaiming

Protest Application 3

Applicant (defendant in the original trial): xxx, male, Han nationality, born on May 22, 1962, xxx He is a farmer and currently lives at No. 47-1, Hedi District, Nanbaicun Village.

Respondent (plaintiff in the original trial): xxx, male, Han nationality, born on March 26, 1973, from xxx Village, farmer, currently living at No. 38-1, Xitou District, Nanbai Village.

Application for protest: Request the xx People's Procuratorate to file a protest against the xx People's Court (20xx) Yu Minchu Zi No. 53 Civil Judgment in accordance with the law, and request the court to revoke the judgment and reject the plaintiff's claim.

Facts and reasons:

1. Basic facts of this case:

In 20xx, the applicant purchased 80 acres of four wastelands in Linangou in the village through a down vote. The forest land was planted with trees, and the contracted management rights of 16.5 acres of land in Linangou were obtained through transfer, totaling 96.5 acres. With the approval of the village committee, the forestry department passed the inspection and acceptance. In 20xx, the forestry department issued a forest rights certificate to the applicant, indicating the four-year range and service life. In 20xx, the respondent, the land contractor adjacent to the applicant, changed the land use beyond the scope of business without the consent of the village committee, changed the original cultivated land into forest land, and planted poplar trees in the land adjacent to the applicant. In the small canal in the middle of the block. Due to the fast growth rate of poplar trees and their well-developed root systems, the normal growth of the applicant's walnut trees has been seriously affected, causing the trees that should bear fruit to be delayed in bearing fruit, seriously affecting the applicant's economic benefits and causing great losses to the applicant. In order to safeguard its own interests and avoid losses to the respondent, the applicant hired an excavator to dig a small channel 80 cm wide and about 1 meter deep in November 20xx, cutting off part of the root system of the poplar tree. to prevent the respondent's poplar trees from causing greater losses to the applicant.

2. The original court made an error in determining the facts.

1. The court of first instance was wrong in determining that the applicant’s ditch-digging behavior constituted infringement.

Although the court of first instance raised the issue of whether the respondent’s tree planting behavior was legal during the trial, it failed to identify this key fact when determining the facts of the case. Whether the respondent's tree planting behavior is legal is the key to this case.

If the respondent’s tree-planting behavior is illegal, then the applicant’s behavior is an act of self-defense against the illegal behavior, and the applicant does not bear any legal responsibility.

If the respondent’s tree planting behavior is legal, the applicant shall bear legal liability beyond the necessary limit. Therefore, the respondent’s tree planting behavior is legal, which is one of the key points of this case. However, The court of first instance did not determine this key fact.

The fact is that when the case was heard, the plaintiff provided a certificate from the village committee. This evidence neither proves that the respondent has the right to operate the forest land nor that the applicant has ownership of the forest trees. Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that “the parties concerned have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims.” If the parties cannot provide evidence for their claims, they will bear the risk of losing the case. In this case, the respondent did not provide any evidence to prove that the poplar tree was his legal property. Naturally, the tree did not belong to the respondent, and the applicant had no right to assert his rights.

The evidence provided by the applicant during the trial to purchase the Village Committee's Sihuang

agreement, land use certificate and forest rights certificate can fully prove that the respondent's behavior is an infringement, and the photos provided by the applicant prove The respondent's trees have caused considerable damage to the applicant. The applicant's digging of ditches is an act of self-defense and does not bear any legal liability.

3. The court of first instance erred in ordering the applicant to compensate the respondent for the loss of trees based on the applicant’s infringement, which was an error in the application of law.

The reason is: In this case, the applicant’s behavior was self-defense, and the method adopted did not exceed the necessary limit and did not cause losses to the respondent. Therefore, according to Article 120 of the Civil Code, Article 8 stipulates that the applicant shall not bear any legal liability.

In summary, the respondent knew that cultivated land could not be converted into forest land at will, but changed the forest land into cultivated land without the consent of the village committee, and at the same time planted trees on land that it did not have the right to use. Moreover, the trees planted directly endanger the interests of others and cause damage to others. The court of first instance violated the legal provisions in determining the facts and deciding the case. According to Articles 179 and 187 of my country's Civil Procedure Law, it requested the procuratorial organ to protest.

Protest Application 4

Applicant: ***, male, Han nationality, born on *month*, year *, villager of **********, Shandong Province , currently living in ********* district.

Respondent: Binzhou Dongsheng Carpet Co., Ltd.

Address: Huimin County Development Zone Code.

Request: Request for revocation

The applicant and the respondent were involved in a dispute over a general loan contract. According to the Civil Ruling No. (20xx) of the Huimin County People’s Court, the application The applicant was dissatisfied with the first-instance ruling and appealed to the Binzhou Intermediate People's Court. The court made a final ruling rejecting the appeal and upholding the original ruling on the grounds that the repayment voucher provided by the applicant did not have an official seal. The applicant believed that the evidence for establishing the facts was insufficient, so he filed an application, requesting the People's Procuratorate to file a protest in accordance with the provisions of Article 185 of the Civil Procedure.

1. The final ruling concluded that the factual evidence was insufficient.

The final ruling found that the repayment documents provided by the applicant did not have an official seal and were not supported. Due to the chaotic internal management of Caixia Carpet Group Co., Ltd. at that time, some documents only had the signature of the payee, and the payee could testify in court as a witness. However, the court made the final judgment without summoning the witness to testify in court.

Therefore, it is unreasonable for the final ruling to conclude that the repayment document provided by the applicant does not have an official seal and should not be supported.

2. The Court of Final Appeal made an error in applying the law.

The final ruling determined that the applicant’s wife’s signature on the statement had the same legal effect. According to Article 66 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, the principal will bear civil liability only if the principal has ratified the act without agency authority, exceeded the agency authority, or acted after the agency authority has been terminated. If I know that another person has committed a civil act in my name and does not deny it, it shall be deemed to be consent. The applicant had denied his wife's signature in court, so the signature on the bill had no legal effect.

Therefore, the application of the law was wrong, so a protest was filed with the procuratorial organ.

This submission

**** Court

Applicant: ***

November 20XX

Protest Application Form 5

Applicant: XXX lives in XXX

The applicant refused to accept the sentence of the Wuling District People’s Court (20xx) of Changde City, Hunan Province. Criminal Judgment No. 193 is accompanied by civil judgment. According to the provisions of Article 182 of the Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China, I hereby apply to your court to file a lawsuit. The reasons are as follows:

1. The court of first instance found the facts unclear.

The court of first instance found out that night: "Pan Xin and his cousin Lu Yifa had a fierce quarrel over trivial matters. When they reached the door of the New Century Business Hotel, the defendant Yang Tao came out to dissuade him. Lu Yifa refused to listen to the dissuasion and quarreled with the defendant Yang Tao. During the incident, the defendant Yang Tao took out a folding jumping knife and stabbed the victim Lu Yifa to the ground. "This is inconsistent with the objective facts. First of all, although the victim Lu Yifa had a quarrel with Pan Xin, there was no evidence to prove that the quarrel was "intense". Secondly, the defendant Yang Tao did not come forward to dissuade him, but helped Pan Xin quarrel with the victim Lu Yifa and kill him with a knife. Although he was persuaded by others, he broke away and stabbed the victim's chest and abdomen continuously, causing Lu Yifa to die. Defendant Yang Tao always emphasized during the investigation, examination and trial that the victim Lu Yifa "squeezed my neck", but all the evidence in the trial failed to prove this fact. Therefore, although the defendant Lu Yifa Yangtao took the initiative to surrender to the public security organ, he failed to truthfully tell the truth about his Fu'an and should not be regarded as surrendering.

2. The trial procedure of the first instance court was improper. In this case, the public prosecution provided evidence 6: surveillance video. This evidence can prove the basic facts of the case, but the court of first instance did not play it during the trial. How can it be cross-examined if it is not played?

3. The court of first instance sentenced defendant Yang Tao to an unusually light sentence. Paragraph 2 of Article 234 of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China" "Whoever causes death or causes serious injury or severe disability by particularly cruel means shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment or death." When the defendant Yang Tao had no dispute with the victim Lu Yifa, in order to help his friend Pan Xin, who had a quarrel with the victim Lu Yifa, he stabbed the victim's chest and abdomen with a knife continuously. His methods were extremely cruel and his behavior was extremely bad. After stabbing the victim, he failed to rescue him and ran away. In order to avoid being punished, he surrendered to the public security organs but did not truthfully confess the facts of his crime.

4. The defendant Yang Tao refused to compensate for the economic losses and should be severely punished. As of the first instance verdict, the defendant and his family showed no remorse. During the rescue process of the victim, not only did they not pay a penny for the rescue cost, but they also did not show the slightest regret during the adjustment process presided over by the court. Sincerity. No partial compensation was paid to the applicant. The defendant's criminal conduct caused extremely severe suffering to the applicant and his family. This cannot be measured in monetary terms. However, the defendant and his family ignored the applicant's pain and not only refused to compensate him, but also tried every possible means to circumvent the law. If such a guilty plea can be used as a sentencing circumstance for a lighter punishment, it would be a shame to the law, a farce to society, and a tragedy for the victim! To sum up, the applicant believes that the facts found in the first-instance judgment were unclear, the law was wrongly applied, and the sentence was inappropriate. I specifically apply to your court to file a lawsuit.

Sincerely,

Wuling District Procuratorate

Applicant:

Protest Application 6

Applicant: Zhang Jianjun February 19, 201X

Applicant: ***, male, Han nationality, born on *month*, **year, villager of **********, Shandong Province, Currently living in ******* district.

Respondent: Binzhou Dongsheng Carpet Co., Ltd.

Address: Huimin County Development Zone Code.

Request: Request for revocation

The applicant and the respondent were involved in a dispute over a general loan contract. According to the Civil Ruling No. (20xx) of the Huimin County People’s Court, the application The applicant was dissatisfied with the first-instance ruling and appealed to the Binzhou Intermediate People's Court. The court made a final ruling rejecting the appeal and upholding the original ruling on the grounds that the repayment voucher provided by the applicant did not have an official seal. The applicant believed that the evidence for establishing the facts was insufficient, so he filed an application, requesting the People's Procuratorate to file a protest in accordance with the provisions of Article 185 of the Civil Procedure.

1. The final ruling found insufficient factual evidence.

The final ruling found that the repayment documents provided by the applicant did not have an official seal and were not supported.

Due to the chaotic internal management of Caixia Carpet Group Co., Ltd. at that time, some documents only had the signature of the payee, and the payee could testify in court as a witness. However, the court made the final judgment without summoning the witness to testify in court.

Therefore, it is unreasonable for the final ruling to conclude that the repayment document provided by the applicant does not have an official seal and should not be supported.

2. The Court of Final Appeal made an error in applying the law.

The final ruling determined that the applicant’s wife’s signature on the statement had the same legal effect. According to Article 66 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, the principal will bear civil liability only if the principal has ratified the act without agency authority, exceeded the agency authority, or acted after the agency authority has been terminated. If I know that another person has committed a civil act in my name and does not deny it, it shall be deemed to be consent. The applicant had denied his wife's signature in court, so the signature on the bill had no legal effect.

Therefore, the application of the law was wrong, so a protest was filed with the procuratorial organ.

This Submission

Application for Protest 7

The court of first instance sentenced the death penalty, but it does not need to be executed immediately. The reason for suspending execution for two years is not valid. The reasons are as follows:

First, the purpose of imposing the death penalty immediately under the criminal law is: the crime is so heinous, the means are cruel, and the circumstances are so egregious that not imposing the death penalty would not satisfy the public. I request everyone, including the first-instance judge and the High Court judge, to take a look at the crimes committed by the defendant as well as the means and circumstances found in the first-instance judgment. Is there anything that is inconsistent with the heinous nature of the crime, the cruel means, and the egregious circumstances?

Second, look at the specific circumstances of the heinous crime, cruel means, and egregious circumstances: According to the facts found in the first-instance judgment, the following keywords can be summarized: grudge due to quarrel, revenge, stalking, entering the house, Punch the victim's face, the victim struggled, hit the victim's face with pliers, hit the victim on the head and stopped moving, took a broom and stabbed the victim's lower part (i.e. vagina), twice, Afraid of death, he squatted down on the ground and strangled his neck with both hands. He strangled him for a while to make sure he was dead, and then destroyed the incriminating evidence. It can be seen that the defendant’s purpose is not only that the victim must die, but also that the victim suffers torture in the process of death that is more painful than death. His subjective viciousness is so vicious and vicious. Such criminals should not be sentenced to death. Is immediate execution consistent with the legislative purpose of the criminal law to not impose the death penalty? It definitely doesn’t match!

Third, the criminal confessed his crime when there was a large amount of evidence and he could not deny it. How could such a confession be used as a mitigating circumstance?

Fourth, the family members of the criminals offered to pay 30,000 yuan in compensation in exchange for mitigating circumstances; but the victim died so tragically and the family members were in so much pain, so what if they could demand 30,000 yuan from the criminals? The applicant absolutely does not want it. We only seek the existence of conscience, family affection, fairness and justice to comfort the soul in heaven and the hearts of parents. Based on this, we give up any compensation for the criminals and their families, and do not want a penny from them. They must be sentenced to death. Execute now!

Applicant: ***

December 20, 20xx