Help me with 3 law questions, thank you!

Question 1: (1) The investigation power of tax evasion cases does not belong to the procuratorate, but to the public security organ, so after the procuratorate learns that Wang is suspected of tax evasion, it should transfer the relevant case file to the public security organ for investigation, and should not immediately get involved and decide to arrest the criminal suspect. (2) The power to execute the arrest belongs to the public security organ, and the procuratorate has no power to enforce the arrest.

3) The guarantor guarantee and the security deposit guarantee cannot be used at the same time, but can only be applied to one of them. (4) The case exceeded the statutory time limit from the filing and investigation to the initiation of public prosecution, and it was an extended period of detention. (5) The court applied the principle of not prosecuting or ignoring the criminal case, and the public prosecution in the case only prosecuted the defendant Wang, but did not prosecute the company, so the court had no right to rule that the company should bear criminal liability.

6) Before the judgment takes effect, the fine and penalty shall not be enforced. (7) In the second-instance trial procedures, a single judge must not be allocated, and a collegial panel of 3-5 adjudicators shall form a trial panel. (8) The people's court shall hear the second-instance trial procedures triggered by the procuratorate's prosecutorial counter-appeal.

9) The original judgment shall be changed by the judgment instead of the ruling.

Question 2: (1) Yes, because the procuratorate shall inform the defendant of his right to retain a defender within 5 days from the date on which the case is moved for trial and prosecution. This time limit has been exceeded.

Moreover, the defendant in this case is a juvenile, and the procuratorate shall also inform him that the legally-designated person has the right to retain a defender. (2) Yes, because he is a close relative of the defendant in this case. (3) None, because the facts of this case are serious, and the defendant may be sentenced to life imprisonment, the intermediate court should be the court of first instance.

4) The presiding judge shall order those who obstruct courtroom order to leave the courtroom if the warning is ineffective; Moreover, the decision on the detention of a participant in the proceedings for disturbing the order of the court is for the President of the Court, and the Presiding Judge has no authority to make such a decision. (5) It is reasonable, because the people's procuratorate is the legal supervision organ of the state and has the right to supervise the entire process of criminal proceedings, and when the people's procuratorate believes that the first-instance judgment is indeed in error, it has the right to raise a prosecutorial counter-appeal within the statutory time limit. (6) There is no violation, because in cases where there is a protest by the public prosecution organ, the defendant's punishment may be increased.

Question 3: The loan bill proves the facts of the case according to its contents, which is documentary evidence; The facts of the case are proved according to the identification of their traces and handwriting, and they are physical evidence.

These questions are very professional, but I'm very lazy now, so it's hard to take a break.

In the historical case of Switzerland's acceptance of refugees, we can see the two-fold essence of law. First, as a democracy, Switzerland has always been committed to democracy and the rule of law, respect for human rights, and the importance of international human rights law. Secondly, Switzerland is a wealthy country with certain economic and social conditions that can provide refugees with certain livelihood security and social support.

Together, these two factors have contributed to the development and implementation of Swiss legislation on the acceptance of refugees.

In the first sense, Switzerland has always focused on democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, which are the foundations of its national culture and values. These values are important in guiding the development of laws governing the admission of refugees. Switzerland** has been working to guarantee basic human rights and humanitarian assistance for refugees, including basic benefits such as housing, food, health care and education, as well as support services such as legal aid, language training and vocational training.

On this basis, Switzerland has also enacted a series of laws and policies on the admission of refugees, providing refugees with a more stable and reliable livelihood. These laws and policies reflect Switzerland's fundamental principles of respect for human rights and international human rights law, and demonstrate the practical application of the democratic rule of law in Switzerland.

In the second sense, Switzerland is a wealthy country with certain economic and social conditions that have an important impact on the reception of refugees. First, wealthy countries can provide refugees with better living conditions, such as housing, food, health care, and education. These conditions can help refugees integrate more quickly into the local community, with a stable income** and career opportunities as soon as possible.

Second, wealthy countries are better able to address the economic and social problems associated with refugee admission, such as population growth, employment, crime, and public services. If these issues are not addressed, they can have a negative impact on local societies, leading to social unrest and instability.

To sum up, the enactment and implementation of the law on the admission of refugees in Switzerland reflects the two-pronged nature of the law.

In this case, we can apply the case analysis method to the two layers of the essence of the law. First of all, we need to understand the basic principles and methods of the case analysis method. The case analysis method is a method of revealing legal principles and rules by studying specific cases.

It involves a detailed analysis and study of the facts in the case, the legal issues, and the interpretation and application of the law.

In this particular case, the Swiss State's laws and policies regarding the reception of refugees have undergone several changes. Since 1859, Switzerland has been willing to accept refugees and has enacted laws to do so. Subsequently, the outbreak of revolution in Hungary and the unrest in the Czech Republic led to a large influx of refugees into Switzerland.

Over time, the number of refugees has increased, and Switzerland is facing a growing refugee problem. In the process, Switzerland** and society gradually realized that the original laws and policies could not cope with the situation at the time and needed to be adjusted and modified.

The first essence is the interpretation and application of the law. Through the analysis of this series of cases, we can see that the Swiss state is faced with the problem of refugees, and needs to interpret and apply the relevant laws to decide whether to accept refugees, how to accept them, and what kind of protection and welfare to provide. This involves the interpretation of refugee law, including the criteria for defining refugees, the requirements of the application procedure, and the protection of refugee rights.

Through the study of the specific circumstances in the case, legal scholars can deeply understand the meaning and application of refugee legal provisions, and find reasonable interpretation and application methods.

The second layer of essence is the development and reform of the law. In these cases, the Swiss state faces a dramatic increase in the scale of the refugee problem pending adjudication, and the laws and policies of the past were not able to meet the needs of the time. Through the case analysis, we can observe that the Swiss state has made adjustments and changes to the law in response to the refugee problem.

The most important of these was that in 1986, Switzerland adopted a referendum to amend the law allowing refugees to settle. This example demonstrates the flexibility and malleability of the law in the face of societal needs and changes. By analyzing this case, we can delve into the development process of the law and think about how the law adapts to social changes and remains just and reasonable.

In general, the two-pronged essence of this case study method is reflected in the interpretation and application of the law and the development and reform of the law. By carefully studying the details of the case and the legal background, we can gain a deeper understanding of the meaning and application of the law, and think about the role and impact of the law in society. At the same time, the case study method also shows how the law interacts with social changes and supports a rational and just social order.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the two-fold nature of Swiss refugee law and to understand the significance of the development and revision of the law. Switzerland, as an open country, has always accepted refugees. However, since 1986, the number of refugees has exploded, and Switzerland finally could not afford it.

As a result, Switzerland adopted a referendum amending the law allowing refugees to settle in Switzerland. We need two layers of the essence of this case.

The essence of the law is to protect the interests of the country and the well-being of the people.

Laws are enacted and amended to safeguard the interests of the country and the well-being of the people. In the case of Switzerland, which had been open to refugees in the past, however, when the number of refugees began to surge, Switzerland began to face various problems, such as economic burdens and social stability. Therefore, in order to protect the interests of Switzerland and the well-being of its people, it is necessary to take action to enact and amend laws to limit the number of refugees and control their entry.

This layer of essence is the basic principle of law formulation and amendment. The state needs to make and amend laws according to its specific circumstances and needs to ensure the stability and prosperity of the country. Therefore, when formulating and amending laws, it is necessary to take into account the interests of the country and the well-being of the people, while also complying with the provisions of international law and human rights law.

The second layer of essence: the formulation and revision of laws need to take into account humanitarian principles.

Although laws are enacted and amended to protect national interests and the well-being of the people, humanitarian principles are also needed to be taken into account in the formulation and revision of laws. Refugees are a group of people in need of protection, often in extreme danger and poverty. Therefore, the State also needs to take into account the rights and needs of refugees when formulating and amending laws.

In the case of Switzerland, despite the amendment of the law allowing refugees to settle in Switzerland, Switzerland had also taken a number of measures to protect the rights and interests of refugees. Switzerland, for example, has limited the number of refugees while providing some humanitarian assistance, such as food and shelter, and protecting their basic rights, such as education and employment.

The essence of this layer emphasizes the humanitarian principle of the enactment and revision of the law. The State needs to take into account the national interest and the well-being of the people, as well as the rights and needs of refugees, when formulating and amending laws. In this way, the country will be able to maintain social stability and prosperity, while at the same time not neglecting humanitarian principles and the rights and interests of refugees.

Humanitarian principles developed and revised. The State needs to take into account the national interest and the well-being of the people, as well as the rights and needs of refugees, when formulating and amending laws. In this way, the country will be able to maintain social stability and prosperity without neglecting humanitarian principles and the rights and interests of refugees.

1. D ordinary civil cases in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, 2. C, Company C shall not revoke the contract before payment by Company A, 3. A (Article 12 of the General Principles of the Civil Law) aThe assignment agreement is valid, 4, a, the husband has just turned 21 years old, 5, a, public trial refers to a system in which the court hears the case and pronounces the judgment in public, 6, d, the result of the judgment in the criminal procedure conforms to the truth, 7, d, administrative regulations.

8. c. During pregnancy, within one year after childbirth, or within 6 months after termination of pregnancy.

9. b, Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

10. d, the main obligation of support to the in-laws or parents-in-law.

11. d, marriage due to coercion, 12, d, two days of imprisonment for one day of detention for controlled prisoners, and one day for one day of detention for criminal detention and fixed-term criminals.

13, a, 30th.

14,a, Public security organs.

15. a, the requirement of the principle of recusal.

1. The refusal to return the loan when it expires constitutes a breach of contract under the Contract Law, which falls within the scope of adjustment of the civil law, and B has a due creditor's right to A, and the statute of limitations has been initiated due to B's active urging of A.

2. B constitutes the crime of intentional homicide, and because B has the subjective motive to kill and commits the act of homicide, the crime is established according to the principle of unity of subjectivity and objectivity of crime and punishment. Although C was mistakenly regarded as A and stabbed into serious injury, it is an attempted crime of intentional homicide, and it cannot be committed as a result.

3. A and B do not constitute a joint crime, because A is for the purpose of self-protection and not for the purpose of getting rid of C by B's hand, and there can be no firm foresight of the fact that B may violate C as his own, so it does not constitute a crime; The purpose of B is to get rid of A, and the purposes of the two parties are also different, and there is neither complicity in the crime, nor division of labor in the crime, nor temporary conspiracy during the crime, so there is no talk of joint crime. (This question is flawed and belongs to the trap question, because it does not explain whether A has the motive to let C be killed instead, let's not do a motive analysis that does not harm C, if A is very sure that B will commit the crime as if C is committed by himself, then A constitutes intentional homicide, and the fourth question should be changed to indirect intention).

4. A does not constitute a crime, and B constitutes direct intent.

5. Article 135 of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that: "The statute of limitations for filing a request to the people's court for protection of civil rights shall be two years, unless otherwise provided by law." That is to say, the two-year statute of limitations has begun to run from the day after the expiration of B's claim against A, and B can file a lawsuit with the people's court within a total of two years, including the time when B has repeatedly demanded from A, otherwise although B can sue after the statute of limitations expires, the court will accept it, but it will lose the right to prevail.

Really brain-wrenching, I hope it can help you.

A's behavior violated the Contract Law, because A borrowed money from B and did not repay it, regardless of whether there was a written record, it was considered that the contract of creditor's rights was concluded.

B's conduct constitutes a crime because B threatens to kill A and carries out the action, although it is C who harms, but the motive is to kill A, which is an attempted homicide or the crime of homicide is suspended.

A and B are not guilty of joint crime because A and B are not a joint conspiracy to harm C, and they have different positions.

A is a malicious possession of another person's property It is an economic crime Applicable to Contract Law Civil Law B Threatens to kill but injures C Its purpose is to kill A Therefore B is the crime of intentional homicide It is a criminal offense and applies to criminal law.

B's claim can be handled by the state agency by presenting the original IOU, for example, by filing a lawsuit in court to demand that A repay his debt.

I hope it can help you.