The corruption case of Bo Xilai, which has attracted worldwide attention, was heard in public from August 22 to 26, 2013, nearly a month later. On September 22, 2013, the Intermediate people's court of Jinan City held a public hearing to announce the first instance verdict, marking the end of the first instance of this case. Regarding this case, which has significant social impact and has received widespread attention, the relevant handling authorities strictly investigate and deal with it in accordance with the law, especially the open trial of the first instance court, which strictly follows the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and Criminal Law. It has become a prominent highlight in terms of open trial, effective protection of the defendant's litigation rights, and the appearance of key witnesses as witnesses in court, making the first instance of this case a major and sensitive case that follows criminal procedure, openness A model of fair trial, which promotes the spirit of the rule of law, demonstrates anti-corruption determination, implements equal justice, and promotes legal education with multiple legal significance, has also been fully recognized. On the basis of the great success of the trial, the judgment of the first instance came out with the features of clear facts, sufficient evidence, thorough reasoning, correct and appropriate application of the law. In particular, the second half of the judgment summarized 20 questions for the defense and defense opinions of the defendant Bo Xilai and his defenders, and made legal and reasonable judgments one by one based on the facts found in the case and the evidence verified by the court review, Thus, the legal basis of this case is solid, and it will inevitably enhance the sense of social identity. Among these 20 issues, most are issues related to evidence and criminal procedure in the Criminal Procedure Law, while some are issues related to conviction and sentencing in the Criminal Law. This article aims to briefly analyze the criminal law aspects of conviction and sentencing in the first instance trial and judgment of this case.

1、 On the Determination of the Crime of Bribery

The crime of bribery is a typical corruption crime in the nature of power and money transactions. It refers to the behavior of state officials taking advantage of their position to extort property from others, or illegally accepting property from others and seeking benefits for them. The fact that Bo Xilai constituted a crime of accepting bribes in the first instance verdict of this case is that from 1999 to 2012, the defendant Bo Xilai, while serving as Mayor of Dalian Municipal People's Government, Secretary of the CPC Dalian Municipal Committee, Governor of Liaoning Provincial People's Government, and Minister of Commerce, took advantage of his position to seek benefits for Dalian International Corporation and its general managers Tang Xiaolin, Shide Group, and accepted the money given by Tang Xiaolin, knowing and recognizing his wife Bo Gu Kailai His son Bo Guagua received the property from Xu Ming, Chairman of Shide Group, amounting to 20.447 million yuan. Compared with the constitutive requirements and case facts of the crime of bribery, Bo Xilai, the defendant who is a state functionary and holds an important position, has two elements of the non bribery type ordinary bribery crime under the clear understanding and intention of the power and money transaction: on the one hand, he uses his position to help the Dalian International Company in charge of Tang Xiaolin receive the Dalian Office in Shenzhen and Tang Xiaolin apply for the automobile import quota, It helped Shide Group to acquire Dalian Wanda Football Team, build a designated helicopter project, and apply for Shide Petrochemical Project, thus possessing the elements of bribery crime to seek benefits for others by taking advantage of their positions; On the other hand, he directly accepted the money given by Tang Xiaolin, which was equivalent to more than RMB 1.109 million. He knew and recognized that his wife and son received the property given by Xu Ming, which was equivalent to RMB 19.3379 million, thus meeting the requirements for accepting other people's property in the crime of bribery. Regarding the determination of the crime of bribery, based on the trial situation and the determination of the first instance judgment, there are two issues that need to be explored and clarified:

First, how to view Bo Xilai's knowing and accepting Xu Ming's property from his wife and son as a crime of accepting bribes? Among them, there are several points: (1) Is Bo Xilai informed and recognized? The defense of the defendant Bo Xilai and the defense opinion of the defender put forward that Bo Xilai could not be deemed to be aware of Bo Gu Kailai's receipt of Xu Ming's money for the purchase of French villas, while Bo Xilai was unaware of Xu Ming's payment of air tickets and travel expenses for Bo Gu Kailai, Bo Guagua and others, as well as his purchase of electric balance cars and repayment of credit card arrears. The first instance judgment has determined that Bo Xilai knew and recognized his wife and son's acceptance of Xu Ming's property according to a variety of evidence on the record verified in the court trial. (2) Does Bo Xilai have the subjective elements of bribery crime? Between the defendant Bo Xilai and his wife, his son and Xu Ming, for more than ten years from 1999 to 2012, the two parties have formed a generalized, long-term intention contact, that is, a deliberate attitude, that is, Bo Xilai uses his position to seek benefits for Xu Ming's Shide Company, and Xu Ming gives Bo Xilai's wife, son and family financial rewards. Both parties are well aware of the substantial relationship between the two parties in this power and money transaction, which is not only confirmed by the testimony of Bo Gu Kailai and Xu Ming, but also the defendant Bo Xilai has reasonable description and recognition in his self written materials and handwritten confession. Under the general and long-term intention of the power and money transaction, the defendant Bo Xilai's ignorance of the details of his wife's and son's acceptance of Xu Ming's property certainly does not affect his subjective knowledge; Their subsequent knowledge and recognition of specific property is also included in their subjective intention of general power and money transactions before and during the event, and does not affect the determination of the subjective elements of their bribery crime. (3) Does Bo Xilai's failure to accept Xu Ming's property directly not constitute bribery? The answer is no. The objective elements of the crime of bribery include compound behavior. Firstly, the promise to commit or specifically commit the act of using official convenience to seek benefits for the briber must be carried out by state officials; The second is the act of accepting money from a bribe giver based on a promise or specific implementation of the aforementioned behavior. This act of accepting money can be carried out by national personnel themselves or by those who have intention to contact the national personnel. In practice, there are many cases where state officials use their positions to seek benefits for others, and their relatives accept money from others for this reason. Such cases should undoubtedly be recognized as bribery crimes. Therefore, Bo Xilai took advantage of his position to seek benefits for Xu Ming's company. Bo Xilai's wife and son therefore accepted Xu Ming's money. Bo Xilai knew and recognized this, and Bo Xilai certainly constituted a crime of bribery. Such qualitative analysis not only conforms to relevant laws and legal principles, but also is a common practice in China's judicial practice.

Secondly, does "official business" constitute the use of position convenience to seek benefits for others in the crime of bribery? In the transcript of the first trial of Bo Xilai's case, we saw that the defendant Bo Xilai repeatedly argued that his support for Tang Xiaolin Company and Xu Ming Company was "business as usual", and the defender also defended that it was Bo Xilai's act of performing his duties according to law, so he questioned the elements of accusing Bo Xilai of seeking benefits for others as a crime of bribery. The prosecutor countered that even if it was "official", it would not affect the establishment of the crime of bribery. The first instance judgment supported the public prosecution opinion and determined that the defendant constituted the crime of bribery. How should we view this issue? According to the provisions of China's criminal law, criminal law theory, and judicial practice, the essence of bribery is the transaction of power and money. As for the means by which the perpetrator seeks benefits for the petitioner, it can be either legal or illegal. The benefits obtained by the perpetrator for the petitioner can be either legitimate or illegitimate, as long as the perpetrator has committed the act of power and money transaction, whether it is "corruption and not violating the law" or "corruption and not violating the law", Neither of them affects the establishment of the crime of bribery. Of course, the two different situations of "corruption and lawlessness" and "corruption and lawlessness" have different impacts on the degree of harm based on the establishment of the crime of bribery. Therefore, whether Bo Xilai violated his duty to seek benefits for Tang Xiaolin and Xu Ming does not affect the establishment of his bribery crime.

2、 On the Determination of Corruption Crimes

Corruption is also a major type of corruption crime. The typical crime of corruption in China's criminal law refers to the act of state officials taking advantage of their position to embezzle, steal, deceive, or illegally occupy public property through other means. The fact that Bo Xilai, the defendant, was found guilty of corruption in the first instance verdict of this case is that Bo Xilai was responsible for the transformation of the secret related places of the superior units undertaken by the Dalian Municipal Government when he was the Secretary of the CPC Dalian Municipal Committee in 2000; After the completion of the project in 2002, upon the proposal of Wang Zhenggang, the director of Dalian Urban Rural Planning and Land Bureau who specifically undertook the project, Bo Xilai, then the governor of Liaoning Provincial People's Government, agreed and instructed Wang Zhenggang and his wife Bo Gu Kailai, and then Bo Gu Kailai discussed and arranged with Wang Zhenggang to transfer the project fund of 5 million yuan allocated by the superior unit to the Dalian Municipal People's Government to Zhao Dongping, the director of Beijing Andao Law Firm designated by Bo Gu Kailai, Bo Gu Kailai asked Zhao to hold the money for him. On this basis, the court of first instance found that Bo Xilai, as a state functionary, used his position to embezzle 5 million yuan with others, and his act constituted a crime of corruption. The defendant Bo Xilai and his defender's main defense and defense opinions against the allegations of corruption are as follows: First, when the alleged corruption occurred, Bo Xilai was the governor of Liaoning Provincial Government and could not directly decide and control the financial affairs of Dalian City, so Bo Xilai did not have the job facilities necessary to constitute a corruption crime; Secondly, Bo Xilai did not have the subjective intention to embezzle public funds, and objectively he did not commit embezzlement, so he did not constitute a crime of corruption. So, how should we view these two issues?

First of all, whether Bo Xilai has any position convenience in this corruption? The first instance verdict found that Bo Xilai had the advantage of his position, and put forward two reasons: first, as the governor of the People's Government of Liaoning Province, Bo Xilai's authority covered Dalian City under the jurisdiction of Liaoning Province; Second, as the original person in charge of the project involved, Bo Xilai was still responsible for the continuation and management of the project at that time, with the convenience of managing and controlling the funds involved. The two reasons of the first instance court are consistent with the facts of the case and supported by sufficient and conclusive evidence, which is legal and reasonable, and therefore their conclusion is also valid. What's more, the defendant Bo Xilai actually exercised the power to dispose of this sum of money. At the same time, we should also see that Wang Zhenggang, as the specific person in charge of the project, certainly has the irrefutable authority to manage the project funds. To say the least, even though Bo Xilai does not have the job convenience to manage and control the funds at all, he, together with Wang Zhenggang and with the help of Wang Zhenggang, illegally possessed the funds by his wife, which certainly constitutes a crime of corruption, However, in this situation, he is no longer taking advantage of his position, but rather taking advantage of Wang Zhenggang's position.

Secondly, whether Bo Xilai has the subjective and objective elements of corruption crime? The subjective element of the crime of corruption is that the perpetrator has the intentional mentality and criminal purpose of illegally occupying public property by taking advantage of their position, while the objective element is that the perpetrator has committed the act of illegally occupying public property by taking advantage of their position. The case trial found that the defendant Bo Xilai, as a national staff member and responsible for managing the project, agreed and instructed Wang Zhenggang and his wife Bo Gu Kailai to discuss and deal with the project fund of 5 million yuan under the proposal of Wang Zhenggang, the specific person in charge, to transfer the fund to Bo Gu Kailai. In fact, Wang Zhenggang and Bo Gu Kailai also dealt with it according to Bo Xilai's intention, Eventually, this sum was controlled and occupied by Bo Gu Kailai. Here, Bo Xilai's consent and encouragement to Wang Zhenggang and Bo Gu Kailai are his behavior of illegally occupying the money by taking advantage of his position to cooperate with Wang Zhenggang and Bo Gu Kailai, which is completely in line with the objective behavior characteristics of corruption crime; At the same time, through this act of consent and encouragement, the defendant Bo Xilai's subjective intention and purpose of illegally occupying the money is also clear, and the defendant actually realized the subjective intention and criminal purpose of the crime of corruption. The defendant Bo Xilai argued that he agreed with Wang Zhenggang to go to Bo Gu Kailai for discussion only because the clause was not easy to deal with, and he wanted Bo Gu Kailai to help solve it properly, rather than his family's illegal possession. As judged by the first instance judgment, this defense is not supported by relevant evidence and is completely unreasonable. Try to measure it with common sense: this sum of money is no longer easy to deal with. If Bo Xilai does not want to take it for himself, he can instruct Wang Zhenggang to hand it over to the Dalian Municipal People's Government and briefly explain it. Why should Wang Zhenggang go to Bo Gu Kailai, who is not a staff member of the Dalian Municipal Government but also has nothing to do with this sum of money, and who is his wife, to discuss how to deal with it? Bo Xilai asked Wang Zhenggang and Bo Gu Kailai to discuss how to safely let Bo Gu Kailai, also known as Bo Xilai's family, illegally possess the money. The fact also evolves according to this logic and reason. After the discussion and arrangement between Wang Zhenggang and Bo Gu Kailai, the money went through several stages of concealment into the account designated by Bo Gu Kailai and was under his control and possession. Bo Gu Kailai said in his testimony that she had told Bo Xilai about the money, and Bo Xilai had no objection or demand for recovery, so the money became the property of Bo Xilai's family, It was not until this incident that they were investigated and dealt with. The above facts and reasons also fully demonstrate that Bo Xilai's argument that he has no purpose of illegally occupying the public funds is weak and completely untenable.

3、 On the Determination of the Crime of Abusing Power

The crime of abuse of power is a crime of dereliction of duty committed intentionally exceeding one's authority. It refers to the behavior of government officials who exceed their authority, illegally decide or handle matters that they do not have the authority to decide or handle, or violate regulations in handling public affairs, resulting in significant losses to public property, the interests of the country and the people. According to the verdict of the first instance of this case, during the period from January 28 to February 2012, the defendant Bo Xilai, as a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and secretary of the CPC Chongqing Municipal Committee, committed a series of acts of abuse of power in violation of regulations after the relevant personnel informed him that Bo Gu Kailai was suspected of intentional homicide, and before and after Wang Lijun defected to the U.S. Consulate General in Chengdu: (1) On the evening of January 28, Wang Lijun, the municipal public security director, told Bo Xilai that Bo Gu Kailai was suspected of killing people; On the morning of January 29, Bo Xilai called Wang Lijun, Guo Weiguo (Deputy Director of the Municipal Public Security Bureau), and Wu Wenkang (Deputy Secretary General of the Municipal Party Committee and Director of the General Office of the Municipal Party Committee) to have a talk, accusing Wang Lijun of framing Bo Gu Kailai and beating and scolding Wang Lijun; On the evening of January 29, according to Bo Gu Kailai's request, Bo Xilai arranged Wu Wenkang to investigate Wang Zhi and Wang Pengfei, the public security investigators who exposed Bo Gu Kailai's suspected murder. Through the above actions, the public security organ was prevented from investigating the murder case of his wife Bo Gu Kailai. (2) During the period from January 29 to February 2, without the approval of the Ministry of Public Security as required, it was decided to remove Wang Lijun from the post of Secretary of the Party Committee and Director of the Chongqing Public Security Bureau of the Communist Party of China through his proposal and hosting the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Chongqing Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China. (3) In the early morning of February 7, Bo Xilai connived at Bo Gu Kailai's residence to participate in the study of Wang Lijun's countermeasures against defection, agreed with Bo Gu Kailai's proposal, and approved the release of the false news that Wang Lijun was receiving "leave treatment" due to mental and physical problems. (4) On February 15, Bo Xilai asked the Chongqing Public Security Bureau to file a case against Wang Pengfei, a police officer who reported that Bo Gu Kailai was suspected of murder; On February 17, upon the proposal and approval of Bo Xilai, Wang Pengfei, then Deputy District Chief of Yubei District of Chongqing, was cancelled as a candidate for the post. The court of first instance found that the above-mentioned abuse of power by the defendant Bo Xilai was an important reason for the failure to investigate and deal with the "11.15" case (that is, Bo Gu Kailai was suspected of murder) in a timely manner according to law and the occurrence of Wang Lijun's defection, which caused particularly bad social impact and caused heavy losses to the interests of the country and the people. Therefore, his behavior constituted a crime of abuse of power according to law and the circumstances were particularly serious.

The defendant Bo Xilai and his defender put forward defense and defense opinions against the accusation of abuse of power, believing that Bo Xilai's behavior does not constitute the crime of abuse of power; The first instance verdict gave a full and powerful response to the above case facts confirmed by the evidence on the case, and it is no doubt that Bo Xilai constitutes a crime of abuse of power. The author fully agrees with the determination of this crime and the response to the plea and defense opinions in the first instance verdict, and believes that Bo Xilai's behavior completely constitutes the crime of abuse of power and is particularly serious when measured based on facts and laws. The subjective element of the crime of abuse of power in China's criminal law is intention, which refers to the mentality of the perpetrator who knows that their behavior is the result of abuse of power and will cause significant losses to public property, the interests of the country and the people, and hopes or allows this result to occur. What the defendant Bo Xilai did fully proves that he has a deliberate attitude towards the crime of abuse of power. The objective elements of the crime of abuse of power have two contents: one is that the perpetrator has committed the act of abuse of power, and the above-mentioned act of the defendant Bo Xilai has completely exceeded his legitimate power and is an act of absolute abuse of power. The second is that the perpetrator's abuse of power "causes significant losses to public property, the interests of the country and the people". Regarding this requirement, Article 1 of the "Provisions on the Standards for Filing Cases of dereliction of Duty and Tort Crimes" passed by the Supreme People's Procuratorate in 2005 and promulgated and implemented on July 26, 2006 stipulates that "serious damage to national reputation or causing adverse social impact" should be regarded as a clear provision for prosecuting cases of abuse of power crimes; The Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of dereliction of Duty (1), passed and promulgated by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate in 2012 and implemented on January 9, 2013, also stipulates in Article 1, Paragraph 1, that "causing adverse social impact" shall be deemed as the crime of abuse of power, and that "causing significant losses to public property, the interests of the state and the people" shall be deemed as the provision of the Law, Article 1, paragraph 2, further defines the act of abuse of power as an aggravation of the crime of abuse of power if the circumstances are particularly serious. Compared with the consequences of the defendant Bo Xilai's abuse of power, a case of intentional killing of foreigners by relatives of senior officials with extremely serious nature and consequences could not be investigated and dealt with in a timely manner according to law, and the investigators were illegally investigated and even put on file for investigation; Local officials ignore central regulations and arbitrarily appoint or remove important positions; Wang Lijun, who was in an important position, defected to a foreign consulate and shocked the whole world; Bo Gu Kailai, who is a murder suspect and has no status as a state functionary, was allowed by Bo Xilai to participate in the response to Wang Lijun's defection and use public power to cover up his crimes. Such farce was actually carried out under the support and direction of Bo Xilai, the leader of the Party and the state and the top leader of Chongqing. Where is there any trace of party discipline and national law? Can't this still be considered as causing a particularly negative social impact? Therefore, the defendant Bo Xilai's behavior completely constitutes the crime of abuse of power, and it belongs to the criminal situation of "particularly serious circumstances" because of "causing particularly bad social impact".

4、 On Penalty Discretion

In this case, on the basis of the Nulla poena sine lege and the crime constitution norms, the defendant Bo Xilai's behavior constitutes three kinds of crimes. The sentencing of the defendant should implement the two basic principles of China's criminal law: first, the principle of equality in the application of the criminal law stipulated in Article 4 of the Criminal Code, that is, the application of the law to anyone who commits a crime is equal, and no one is allowed to have the privilege of transcending the law. According to this principle, punishing Bo Xilai, the leader of the Party and the state, for three crimes according to law is just the implementation of the principle and idea of equal application of criminal law and rejection of extralegal privileges. The second principle is that Article 5 of the Criminal Code stipulates the principle of compatibility between criminal responsibility and punishment, that is, the severity of the punishment imposed should be consistent with the criminal acts committed by the criminals and the criminal responsibilities they bear. The three crimes committed by the defendant Bo Xilai each have their own criminal circumstances. The penalty discretion should consider their subjective malignancy and personal danger on the basis of measuring the harm of their crimes, and according to the degree of criminal responsibility determined by these circumstances, then apply appropriate punishment. In addition, since Bo Xilai constituted three kinds of crimes, the punishment decided to execute should also follow the rule of combined punishment for several crimes stipulated in the Criminal Law. The sentencing of the defendant Bo Xilai's crime in the first instance judgment fully implements and reflects the above criminal principles and rules.

Firstly, regarding the sentencing of bribery. The court of first instance found that the defendant Bo Xilai, as a state functionary, accepted the request of Tang Xiaolin and Xu Ming, took advantage of his position to seek benefits for relevant units and individuals, directly accepted the money given by Tang Xiaolin, and knowingly and recognized his family members to accept the money given by Xu Ming. His behavior has constituted a crime of bribery, with the amount of bribery being more than 20.44 million yuan. How should Bo Xilai's bribery crime be punished? According to Article 386 of the Criminal Code, those who commit the crime of bribery shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 383 on the punishment of corruption based on the amount and circumstances of the bribery proceeds. Based on the provisions of Articles 386 and 383 of the Criminal Code, it can be concluded that those who commit the crime of bribery and accept bribes exceeding 100000 yuan shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment, and may also be sentenced to confiscation of property; If the circumstances are particularly serious, the death penalty shall be imposed and property shall be confiscated. Bo Xilai took bribes amounting to more than 20.44 million yuan. The court of first instance sentenced him to life imprisonment for bribery, Civil death for life, and confiscated all his personal property. Is Bo Xilai's sentence of life imprisonment appropriate? Below is a brief analysis.

On the one hand, is life imprisonment for Bo Xilai's bribery a light sentence? The first instance judgment did not determine that his bribery crime was "particularly serious", and if such a determination is made, he must be sentenced to death (including a reprieve) in accordance with the law. The "serious circumstances" of corruption and bribery crimes have not yet been clearly defined by judicial interpretation. It is generally believed that they can include: the amount is particularly large, far exceeding 100000 yuan; The ringleaders of criminal groups; Other serious consequences or extremely negative social impacts caused by criminal acts, such as embezzlement of large amounts of specific funds and materials such as disaster relief, relief, preferential treatment, and poverty alleviation, and significant losses to the state and society caused by bribery for the benefit of the briber. The defendant Bo Xilai took bribes amounting to more than 20.44 million yuan, which should be a huge amount, so it seems that "the circumstances are particularly serious" is inevitable; However, the punishment provisions for the crime of bribery emphasize the consideration of the amount and circumstances of the bribery, and the severity of the punishment cannot be solely determined by the amount of the bribery proceeds. In this case, except for the extremely large amount of bribery, other circumstances are still ordinary. If it is determined that the "circumstances are particularly serious", it may be an overemphasis on the amount without paying attention to other circumstances; More importantly, in recent years, China has been carrying out death penalty reforms, emphasizing strict restrictions and efforts to reduce the application of the death penalty for non violent crimes (including bribery and corruption). Considering the above circumstances, the court of first instance did not consider the bribery crime committed by Bo Xilai to be "particularly serious", thus avoiding the application of the death penalty (including the death sentence with a reprieve), which should be said to be appropriate and rational.

On the other hand, according to the sentencing of several provincial and ministerial level officials who have been sentenced to life imprisonment or death sentence with a reprieve for bribery in recent years, many of those sentenced to death sentence with a reprieve have accepted bribes of less than 20 million yuan, while many of those sentenced to life imprisonment have accepted bribes of less than 20 million yuan or even less than 10 million yuan. The first instance verdict found that Bo Xilai's bribery amount was up to 20.44 million yuan. Although the circumstances were ordinary, there was no leniency. Comparatively speaking, the sentence of life imprisonment could not be said to be heavy. This sentencing was not only based on the law, but also considered the specific circumstances of the case, and to a certain extent, it was lenient, so it was legal and reasonable.

Secondly, regarding the sentencing of corruption crimes. The court of first instance found that Bo Xilai, as a state functionary, took advantage of his position to embezzle public funds with others, and his act constituted a crime of corruption, amounting to 5 million yuan. According to the provisions of Article 383 (1) of the Criminal Code on the punishment of corruption, if an individual embezzles more than 100000 yuan, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment, and may also be sentenced to confiscation of property; If the circumstances are particularly serious, the death penalty shall be imposed and property shall be confiscated. The court of first instance sentenced Bo Xilai to 15 years' imprisonment for the crime of corruption and confiscated personal property of 1 million yuan. Is this sentencing appropriate? The first instance ruling did not determine that his corruption crime belonged to "particularly serious circumstances", thus excluding the application of the death penalty (including a reprieve); The first instance judgment did not choose life imprisonment, but instead chose 15 years of imprisonment, based on the sentencing range of imprisonment for more than 10 years or life imprisonment corresponding to the amount of crime committed. It should be said that the sentencing of Bo Xilai's crime of embezzlement of 5 million yuan in the first instance judgment is also legitimate and reasonable, obviously not heavy, and even made appropriate light consideration.

Once again, regarding the sentencing of the crime of abuse of power. The first instance verdict found that Bo Xilai, as a staff member of the state organs, abused his power, causing heavy losses to the interests of the state and the people, and his behavior constituted a crime of abuse of power, which was particularly serious. According to Article 397 (1) of the Criminal Code, if the case constitutes the crime of abuse of power and the circumstances are particularly serious, it shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more than 7 years. According to the degree of harm of the crime of abuse of power committed by Bo Xilai and its corresponding statutory punishment, the court of first instance sentenced him severely to 7 years' imprisonment, which is also legal and reasonable.

Finally, regarding joint punishment for multiple crimes. Since all the crimes committed by the defendant Bo Xilai were punished according to law, the rule of combined punishment for several crimes should be applied according to law. The main sentences of the three crimes committed by the defendant Bo Xilai are life imprisonment, 15 years' imprisonment and 7 years' imprisonment. According to the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code and relevant theories and practices, if life imprisonment and fixed-term imprisonment coexist among the main sentences of several crimes announced in the judgment, the penalty decided to be executed by absorbing the principle shall be adopted, that is, a life imprisonment shall be decided to be executed, and other main sentences lower than life imprisonment shall not be executed. Therefore, the first instance verdict decided to impose life imprisonment on Bo Xilai, Civil death for life, and confiscate all his personal property.

To sum up, the trial of Bo Xilai's case in the first instance, on the basis of strictly following the criminal procedure and highlighting the due process, also made the first instance judgment that was correct in conviction, appropriate in sentencing, based on the law, and reasonable in feeling, thus realizing the substantive justice of the case trial, making the trial of this case a model of implementing the spirit of modern criminal rule of law, with both procedural justice and substantive justice. Seriously summarizing and conducting in-depth research on the trial experience of this case and promoting it will be helpful for promoting the rule of law in criminal law in China.

Author: Zhao Bingzhi

Source: Legal Education Network