Case studies of different outcomes resulting from different charges

Kunming Intermediate People's Court's boutique case show: two people snatched mobile phones on different charges, and the knife-wielding guy was convicted of robbery.

When the two gangs were wandering around, they saw someone talking on their mobile phones, and they suddenly had the idea of robbery. Snatched the mobile phone and handed it to his companion and ran, the robbed person was not convinced, and wanted to catch the guy who grabbed the mobile phone, at this time, the guy pulled out a knife and threatened, and escaped while the robbed person dodged, and in the end, the two guys were still caught by the well-meaning crowd. The Wuhua District People's Court made a verdict that the two gangs were guilty of robbery and robbery respectively.

This case was rated as a 2006 excellent case by the Kunming Intermediate People's Court because of the accurate conviction and sentencing of the defendants who jointly committed the criminal acts.

On January 1, 2005, Wang and Huang, who were under the age of 18, wandered to the pedestrian bridge in Xiama Village, Longquan Road, Kunming City, and saw a person playing **, and Wang snatched the mobile phone from behind while he was unprepared. Just as he was about to escape, he was caught by the person who was calling the mobile phone, and Wang immediately transferred the mobile phone to his accomplice Huang, who picked up the mobile phone and ran away. At this time, in order to resist arrest, Wang pulled out the jumping knife he carried with him and threatened the other party, and the person who was robbed had to give up when he saw this, and Wang was able to flee the scene.

When the two fled to a room in the Zhongyuan Hotel in Xiama Village, Kunming City, they were arrested by the crowd who rushed to hear the news and handed over to the public security organs for processing. Subsequently, the police returned the robbed mobile phone to the victim.

The public prosecution initiated a public prosecution on the grounds that the acts of Wang and Huang constituted the crime of robbery. Wang had no objection to the prosecution's accusations, but his defender suggested that Wang was under the age of 18 when he committed the crime, and suggested that the court give him a lighter or commuted punishment. Huang argued that he did not use violence to threaten the victim, and his actions did not constitute the crime of robbery.

The Wuhua Court held at trial that: after robbing others of their property, Wang threatened violence on the spot in order to resist arrest, and the nature of his behavior had changed from robbery to robbery, and should be convicted and punished for the crime of robbery; Wang X was not yet 18 years old at the time of the crime, and shall be given a lighter or commuted punishment in accordance with law. After Huang escaped, he was not aware of Wang's violent threats and resistance to arrest with a knife alone, so he only bears criminal responsibility for the joint robbery and should be punished as the crime of robbery.

Accordingly, the Wuhua Court made a first-instance judgment: the defendant Wang committed robbery and was sentenced to one year and six months imprisonment and a fine of 1,500 yuan; Defendant Huang committed the crime of robbery and was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and a fine of 1,000 yuan.

Analysis. This case is a typical case in which some of the perpetrators of a joint crime committed other crimes beyond their common intent, and has positive guiding significance in the application of law. The highlights of the trial of the case are:

Correctly grasped the constitutive elements of a joint crime, and conducted an in-depth theoretical analysis of the determination of the crimes of over-limiting, accomplice relationship, and transformational robbery on the basis of the different stages of the joint robbery crime, and correctly determined that the two defendants were joint robbery crimes, but the defendant Wang X was converted into a robbery crime because he resisted arrest and threatened the victim with a knife, and considering the fact that Wang X was a minor, The correct conviction and sentencing of the two defendants for the crime of robbery and robbery respectively embodies the principle of proportionality of criminal responsibility and punishment and the principle of special protection for minors.

Explain what kind of punishment you have committed.

Case: In 1997, Xiao Li went to a clothing company as a sales manager, and the two parties signed a five-year contract, and at the request of the company, she paid a deposit of 5,000 yuan. In 2001, the company laid off employees due to the company's recession.

But if she was laid off, she couldn't get the deposit, and in order to get a large amount of deposit, she had to sign the "resignation application form" prepared by the company. Later, a lawsuit was filed with the company over the issue of economic compensation.

Result: Xiao Li's request for the company to pay economic compensation was rejected. According to the Labor Law and relevant provisions, if an employer terminates a labor contract in accordance with legal procedures, it shall pay severance to the employee.

However, if the employee resigns on his own initiative, the employer may not pay severance compensation. According to the Measures for Economic Compensation for Breach and Termination of Labor Contracts, if an employer terminates a labor contract, it shall pay the employee an economic compensation equivalent to one month's salary for every full year of service, up to a maximum of 12 months. In addition, if the employer fails to provide severance to the employee in accordance with the regulations, it must pay an additional severance of 50% of the severance in addition to the full amount of the severance payment. However, in practice, in order to avoid economic compensation, some employers have adopted various methods to force employees to resign voluntarily, and some even mislead employees by asking employees to fill out a "resignation form" even if the employer dismisses the employee.

In this case, it is very difficult for the worker to provide evidence; And the most unfavorable evidence for them is the proof of voluntary resignation "resignation form". In this case, if the company lays off employees, the employer unilaterally terminates the contract and should pay severance compensation. However, Xiao Li was unable to provide evidence, so in the end, the court accepted the company's evidence "resignation form", and in the end, Xiao Li lost the lawsuit.

In addition, the employer is not allowed to collect any form of deposit, and what has been collected should be refunded. Therefore, if Xiao Li understands the relationship between "resignation" and "dismissal" and understands the relevant provisions of the law, he can avoid causing losses to his economic interests.