Dear Chief Judge, Judge, and People's Juror:

Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm has been appointed by the Taizhou Legal Aid Center to appoint Lawyer Huang Daojin as the defense for the second instance of the appellant Hong, who is suspected of corruption, to participate in the litigation activities of this case. After accepting the assignment, the defender carefully read all files and materials, and through meeting with the appellant and participating in today's court investigation, so that I have a more comprehensive and objective understanding of the case. Now, based on the facts of the case, and in combination with relevant evidence materials, the following defense opinions are issued for the reference of the Judicial panel.

My overall defense opinions mainly include two points. Firstly, the fact that the first instance judgment determines that the appellant participated in coordinating the handling of infrastructure supporting fees to offset the stone slag payment and received 30000 yuan is unclear and the evidence is insufficient; Secondly, even if the appellant ultimately received 30000 yuan, the appellant's behavior did not meet the subjective and objective constitutive requirements of the joint crime of corruption. The appellant's behavior did not constitute the crime of corruption. The first instance court's judgment of sentencing the appellant to one year's imprisonment for corruption was incorrect and should be revoked and the appellant, Hong, should be acquitted in accordance with the law. The defense viewpoints are now divided as follows:

1、 If the first instance court determines that the appellant received 30000 yuan, and regardless of whether the appellant actually received the money or not, assuming that they did receive 30000 yuan, the appellant's behavior does not constitute a joint crime of corruption.

（1） According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of China and the Interpretation of the Supreme Court on Several Issues Concerning the Determination of Joint Crimes in the Trial of Cases of Embezzlement and Occupation of Duty (Fa Shi (2000) No. 15), the so-called joint corruption crime refers to the act of corruption committed by two or more people jointly.

It has the following characteristics: firstly, the perpetrator of corruption must be two or more people (including two people); The second is that the actors jointly engaged in illegal possession of public (state-owned) property or non-state-owned unit property; The third is that there is a common intention of corruption among the perpetrators; The fourth is that under the joint intentional control of common corruption offenders, they are interconnected and mutually conditional; The fifth is that the joint corruption behavior has caused the total criminal result, that is, the total amount of corruption is the unified result caused by the joint intention of each accomplice.

However, in terms of the actual situation of this case, from the evidence provided by the prosecution, it can be seen that the appellant Hong, Huang, Wang, Wu, and others jointly engaged in the embezzlement of 233000 yuan of public funds; It cannot be confirmed that the appellant, Hong, had a joint intention of corruption with others; Moreover, there is no total criminal result caused by the appellant Hong and other defendants under the joint intentional domination, mutual connection, mutual conditions, and joint corrupt behavior. Therefore, the appellant should not bear criminal responsibility for the corrupt behavior of Huang, Wang, and Wu.

（2） The appellant Hong was unaware of Huang, Wang, and Wu's shared ideas of corruption, their discussions on how to embezzle and divide the money, their joint decision-making and decision on corruption, and ultimately, when they received 233000 yuan of money. The appellant Hong is completely an outsider in this case and should not bear criminal responsibility for joint corruption.

1. It can be seen from the transcript made by Wu on July 3, 2012 from 10:05 to 19:20 (see lines 8-13 on page 3), "In the second half of 2007, people in our headquarters said that everyone worked hard, paid poorly, and complained a lot. Once, in the office of Mr. Huang in the headquarters, Mr. Huang said to Mr. Wang that the headquarters had a large amount of work and a lot of things. He asked us to think of ways to get some Florida Water and decorate money for everyone to use. I said it was so hard, and it was also appropriate to decorate money for everyone to use. To be honest, I heard that the commander in chief was here Well, in the future, money can be divided and I am also very happy. At that time, what we thought about was that in the future, we would increase the engineering quantity through Hong Moubao and distribute some money from receiving it From this, it can be seen that Huang, Wang, and Wu had the idea and motivation of corruption as early as 2007, with the goal of extorting money from certain streets. What needs to be noted by the Judicial panel is that the appellant Hong began to be transferred to the Urban Construction Office in March 2008. Before that, he had worked in the petition office of a certain street in Jiaojiang District. There was no intersection with the headquarters.

2. In 2007, after the headquarters collected stone slag payments from various enterprises in the eastern park, they had already paid 233000 yuan in advance to Hong Moubao. In the second half of 2008, when the headquarters settled with the enterprises, it was found that 233000 yuan should be refunded to four enterprises, namely 105000 yuan from a certain industrial and trade enterprise in Taizhou, 28000 yuan from a certain sewing machine Co., Ltd. in Taizhou, 50000 yuan from a certain knitting clothing factory in Jiaojiang, and 50000 yuan from a certain needle textile Co., Ltd. in Taizhou. Based on this, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that Huang, Wang, and Wu had already engaged in embezzlement and private distribution of the funds between 2007 and 2008, and this possibility is completely present. As for why there will be a case of using supporting fees to offset the stone slag payment in the future, it cannot be ruled out that Huang, Wang, and Wu have taken subsequent remedial measures out of fear and fear of the matter being exposed. Therefore, the corrupt behavior of Huang, Wang, and Wu may have ended between 2007 and 2008, so there is no correlation with the appellant.

3. The proposal to embezzle 233000 yuan was first put forward by Wang, and was confirmed by Huang, then the director of the Subdistricts of China of XX in Jiaojiang District. This can be mutually confirmed by the transcripts of Wu and Wang. On July 3, 2012, Wu recorded, "... Wang and I went to Huang's office, and Wang said, 'Can we take back the over 200000 yuan that was previously used to offset the excess of the stone slag payment with the supporting fee and resolve it now from Hong Moubao? Everyone can use it separately, and Huang nodded and agreed...'" Wang recorded on July 14, 2012, In the first half of 2009, Wu and I came to Huang's office and told him that the four companies now request to return the overpaid stone slag payment or offset it with supporting fees. Is it possible to take back the overpaid stone slag payment from Hong Moubao and return it to their company? Huang said that the money from Hong Moubao is intended for us to arrange and distribute it in the future, so please do not move... "It can be seen that the appellant is concerned about these discussions There is no knowledge about discussing and deciding on corruption, let alone joint criminal intent and committing criminal acts. The corruption behavior in this case was completely planned, discussed, and decided by Huang, Wang, and Wu, and the appellant did not participate in it and had no relationship with the appellant.

4. For the embezzlement of 233000 yuan, it was carried out by Huang, Wang, and Wu. The appellant had no knowledge of when the embezzlement occurred, and from the entire process of corruption, Huang, Wang, and Wu had already committed crimes before the embezzlement was carried out, while the appellant was never aware of it. As for the cost of 17000 yuan, which was falsely claimed by Hong Moubao through reporting the project quantity, the appellant remained unaware and did not participate.

5. The appellant, Hong, did not participate in coordinating the refund of infrastructure supporting fees against the stone slag payment. As a staff member of the Hongjia Street Urban Construction Office, the appellant is loyal to his duties and strictly follows the regulations for the collection of each supporting fee. It can also be fully reflected from the case materials that the appellant did not sign in all the accounts where the supporting fees were used to offset the stone slag payment. In fact, the appellant had no idea how or when to offset the refund. And it is obvious that Huang, Wang, and Wu have signed and agreed to each refund procedure. Therefore, it is incorrect for the first instance court to determine that the appellant participated in coordinating the fact of set-off.

6. In the case where Huang, Wang, and Wu have already completed their corrupt behavior, if the three of them later gave the appellant a so-called "sealing fee" of 30000 yuan due to concerns that the appellant was a member of the urban construction office or had knowledge of their corrupt behavior, assuming that according to the intention of the first instance court, the appellant was allocated 30000 yuan, how can this behavior be characterized? The joint corruption behavior of Huang, Wang, and Wu has come to an end, and the subsequent distribution of 30000 yuan of stolen money to the appellant as a "sealing fee" is considered a joint crime of corruption? The appellant and Huang and others had no prior intention of committing a crime, so how can corruption be determined? Assuming that the appellant receives a "sealing fee" of 30000 yuan, whether it is a violation of discipline or other qualifications, it does not constitute a joint crime of corruption. To put it metaphorically, Zhang San and Li Si went to a certain street to steal money. After stealing 100000 yuan in cash, Wang Wu learned about it and was afraid that Wang Wu would disclose it. Then, Zhang San and Li Si gave Wang Wu 30000 yuan as a "sealing fee". Does Wang Wu's behavior constitute a joint crime of theft? Obviously, Wang Wu should not bear criminal responsibility for theft.

2、 The appellant did not receive a embezzlement payment of 30000 yuan, and the first instance court's factual determination was unclear and the evidence was insufficient.

1. From the appellant's confession, it can be seen that the appeals from the Commission for Discipline Inspection, the Anti Corruption Bureau, the Public Prosecution Department, the first instance, and even now are not completely consistent. Why is this situation happening? In the appellant's own words, it is completely understandable that he can blindly admit that he can be exempted from criminal punishment and retain public office. Moreover, the appellant's physical condition is not good, and he has high blood pressure. He thought that if he admitted it recklessly, he would be fine. Therefore, the appellant's transcript was basically made in this situation.

2. The appellant is unaware of how Huang, Wang, and Wu operated the infrastructure supporting fees to offset the stone slag payment. The specific methods and behaviors of offsetting the fees were all operated and implemented by Huang. Moreover, from the perspective of handling the refund procedures, each transaction is also signed by Huang, Wang, and Wu, without the signature of the appellant. As a member of the Urban Construction Office, if the appellant participates in coordinating and handling the refund procedures, why is there no signature of the appellant in the handling column? This is clearly not in line with common sense. Therefore, without the appellant's knowledge of the joint corruption behavior of Huang and others, Huang, Wang, and Wu willingly handed over 30000 yuan in cash to the appellant. This is beyond reason and reason, and naturally, the money will not be distributed to the appellant.

In summary, the defender believes that the appellant did not intentionally engage in joint corruption subjectively, nor did he objectively engage in such behavior, which does not meet the behavioral characteristics and constitutive requirements of the crime of corruption stipulated in China's criminal law. The appellant, Hong, clearly does not constitute the crime of corruption.

Respected presiding judge, judge, esteemed court, esteemed court, not because you are law enforcers, but because the power you exercise is the judicial power conferred by the national law symbolized by the national emblem behind you. This judicial power is beyond nature and sacred. The right or wrong of your judgment is directly related to the fairness of the application of the law, the innocence of the appellant, and the confidence in Chinese justice. Therefore, the defender hopes that the second instance court, based on the principles of independent trial and necessary correction, will revoke the first instance judgment in accordance with the law and directly acquit the appellant, in order to demonstrate judicial fairness and win the hearts of the people.

Speech completed, thank you!

Defender: Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm

Lawyer Huang Daojin

January 8, 2014