catalogue

1. Feng Hongfei's intentional homicide case

2. Industrial Bank Co., Ltd. Jinan Branch v. Shandong Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. Jinan Branch, Fujian Wanglong Trading Co., Ltd. Confirmed Warehouse Business Cooperation Contract Dispute Case

3. Dispute between CCTV International Network Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Quandou Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. on Infringement of Work Information Network Communication Rights

4. Guo Desheng v. Administrative Penalty Case of the Land and Resources Bureau of Weihui City, Henan Province

5. Dai Shihua v. Jinan Public Security Fire Brigade Fire Administrative Acceptance Case

1、 Feng Hongfei's Intentional Murder Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 9, 2011, the defendant Feng Hongfei and the villagers in the same village, Feng Mouqiang (victim, 13 years old) and Feng Moujia (victim, 13 years old), made an appointment to catch mice at the dam, and the three of them made barbecue together. During this period, Feng Hongfei had a dispute with Feng Mouqiang over trivial matters, and then held a long handled sharp knife and hammer to stab and hit Feng Mouqiang and Feng Moujia successively, causing Feng Mouqiang's heart to be punctured and he died from hemorrhagic shock; Feng Moujia died of hemorrhagic shock combined with head injury. Feng Hongfei dug a pit on site to bury the bodies of Feng Qiang and Feng Jia. On December 11th, Feng Hongfei wrote two extortion letters to divert his attention, each placed at the doorstep of Feng Mouqiang and Feng Moujia's home.

（2） Judgment results

The Supreme People's Court believes that the defendant Feng Hongfei intentionally and illegally deprived others of their lives, and his behavior constitutes intentional homicide. Feng Hongfei killed two minors with weapons due to trivial matters. The criminal methods were cruel, the circumstances were particularly severe, and the consequences were particularly serious. The crime was extremely serious and should be punished in accordance with the law. The facts determined in the first and second instance judgments are clear, the evidence is reliable and sufficient, the conviction is accurate, and the sentencing is appropriate. The trial procedure is legal. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, it is approved that the Yunnan Provincial Higher People's Court upheld the criminal ruling of the first instance that the defendant, Feng Hongfei, was sentenced to death for intentional homicide and deprived of political rights for life.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, crimes that infringe on the rights and interests of minors have occurred from time to time, some of which are extremely serious and have caused adverse social impacts. For such crimes, the national courts have always adhered to strict crackdowns in accordance with the law, effectively punished criminals, and improved the legal awareness and prevention and protection awareness of the whole society through case trials, further creating a good social environment conducive to the healthy growth of minors. In this case, the defendant Feng Hongfei killed two minors who were only 13 years old with a sharp knife and a hammer due to trivial matters. His criminal methods were cruel, the circumstances were particularly severe, and the consequences were particularly serious, which constitutes an extremely serious crime. It is completely correct for the Supreme People's Court to approve Feng Hongfei's death penalty in accordance with the law based on his crime.

2、 Industrial Bank Co., Ltd. Jinan Branch v. Shandong Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. Jinan Branch, Fujian Wanglong Trading Co., Ltd. Confirmed Warehouse Business Cooperation Contract Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On February 24, 2012, Industrial Bank Jinan Branch, Wanglong Company, and Jigang Company signed a tripartite cooperation agreement on confirmed warehouse business, which stipulated that in order to ensure the performance of various credit business agreements between Industrial Bank Jinan Branch and Wanglong Company between February 24, 2012 and February 23, 2013, Wanglong Company and Jigang Company agreed to use bank acceptance bills as the payment method for their trade contracts, And Industrial Bank Jinan Branch serves as the acceptance bank for the draft, while Jigang Company serves as the payee for the draft. Industrial Bank Jinan Branch has agreed to lend a loan to Wanglong Company to pay for the goods under the above-mentioned trade contract. The mode of picking up the goods is adopted by Wanglong Company from Jigang Company. After the bank acceptance bill is issued, Wanglong Company can withdraw goods equivalent to 100% of the initial deposit from Jigang Company. Afterwards, every time Wanglong Company picks up goods from Jigang Company, Jigang Company should handle it with the "Delivery Notice" issued by Industrial Bank Jinan Branch. On the day of receiving the "Delivery Notice", Jigang Company immediately issued the "Delivery Notice" to Industrial Bank Jinan Branch, and handled the shipment matters with Wanglong Company in accordance with the provisions of the "Delivery Notice". If Jigang Company violates the above regulations to handle the delivery procedures for Wanglong Company, it shall bear joint and several repayment responsibilities to the Jinan Branch of Industrial Bank.

On February 27, 2012, Jigang Company was renamed Shangang Company, and on February 28, 2012, Shangang Jinan Company was established. Shan Gang Company agrees that Shan Gang Jinan Company will continue to fulfill the relevant responsibilities and obligations of Ji Gang Company in the "Confirmation Warehouse Business Tripartite Cooperation Agreement", and the other two parties also acknowledge this.

On August 14, 2012, Industrial Bank Jinan Branch (acceptor) and Wanglong Company (acceptor) signed the "Commercial Bill Bank Acceptance Contract". It is agreed that Industrial Bank Jinan Branch will handle a bank acceptance bill of 81.5 million yuan for Wanglong Company, with a term from August 14, 2012 to February 14, 2013. On August 15, 2012, Industrial Bank Jinan Branch delivered 17 bank acceptance bills totaling 81.5 million yuan from Wanglong Company as the drawer and Shangang Jinan Company as the payee to Shangang Jinan Company, fulfilling its obligations in accordance with the "Confirmed Warehouse Business Tripartite Cooperation Agreement". Afterwards, without receiving the delivery notice from Industrial Bank Jinan Branch, Shangang Jinan Company did not return the remaining 57.05 million yuan acceptance bill to Industrial Bank Jinan Branch in accordance with the "Confirmed Warehouse Business Tripartite Cooperation Agreement", and delivered the equivalent goods to Wanglong Company on its own.

The Commercial Draft Bank Acceptance Contract signed between Industrial Bank Jinan Branch and Wanglong Company expired on February 14, 2013, and Wanglong Company failed to fulfill its repayment obligations as stipulated in the contract. As of March 25, 2013, Wanglong Company owed a total of 56707177.04 yuan in advance payment principal and 1081765.24 yuan in interest on bank acceptance bills to Industrial Bank Jinan Branch.

Industrial Bank Jinan Branch filed a lawsuit to the court requesting that Wanglong Company repay the amount of 57.05 million yuan under the bank acceptance bill and bear interest of 1081765.24 yuan; Shan Steel Company and Shan Steel Jinan Company shall bear joint and several liability for the repayment of the above-mentioned debts.

（2） Judgment results

The Shandong Provincial High People's Court held in the second instance that the "Confirmed Warehouse Business Tripartite Cooperation Agreement" signed between Industrial Bank Jinan Branch, Jigang Company, and Wanglong Company was signed to ensure the performance of various credit business transactions between Wanglong Company and Industrial Bank Jinan Branch from February 24, 2012 to February 23, 2013. According to the agreement, a trade contract relationship is established between Wanglong Company and Jigang Company. Wanglong Company applies to the Jinan Branch of Industrial Bank for the issuance of a bank acceptance bill as a financing method, and the bank acceptance bill of Jigang Company will be directly paid by the Jinan Branch of Industrial Bank to Jigang Company. Wanglong Company will pay the full amount of the bill to the Jinan Branch of Industrial Bank before the bank acceptance bill expires, Industrial Bank Jinan Branch issues a delivery notice to Jigang Company based on the amount and progress of ticket payments made by Wanglong Company, and Jigang Company ships goods to Wanglong Company based on the delivery notice issued by Industrial Bank Jinan Branch; If Jigang Company fails to receive the delivery notice from Industrial Bank Jinan Branch and delivers goods to Wanglong Company, it shall bear joint and several repayment responsibilities for Wanglong Company's debts. Later, due to the renaming of Jigang Company to Shangang Company, the assets, liabilities, equity, business, and other rights and obligations of the original Jigang Company were inherited by Shangang Jinan Company. Shangang Jinan Company failed to fulfill the "Confirmed Warehouse Business Tripartite Cooperation Agreement" as agreed, which constitutes a breach of contract. Industrial Bank Jinan Branch requires Shangang Jinan Company to bear joint and several repayment responsibilities in accordance with the contract and legal provisions. Therefore, Shangang Company and Shangang Jinan Company should jointly assume joint and several repayment responsibilities for Wanglong Company's debts. Industrial Bank Jinan Branch advanced the bank acceptance bill payment for Wanglong Company in accordance with the contract, fulfilling the contractual obligations. If Wanglong Company fails to deposit the full amount of the bill of exchange with Industrial Bank Jinan Branch before the expiration of the bank acceptance bill as agreed in the contract, it shall bear the repayment responsibility and pay interest as agreed in the contract. Thus, it was ruled that Wanglong Company would repay Industrial Bank Jinan Branch's bank acceptance bill advance payment principal of 56707177.04 yuan and interest of 1081765.24 yuan; Shangang Company and Shangang Jinan Company shall bear joint and several liability for the repayment obligations of Wanglong Company.

（3） Typical significance

This case is the first confirmed warehouse dispute case in Shandong Province, and the judgment in this case has played a good exemplary role. Confirmed warehouse "refers to a financial service that uses bank credit as the carrier, bank acceptance bills as the settlement tool, the bank controls the ownership of the goods, the seller is entrusted to keep the goods, and the seller repurchases the amount other than the acceptance bill deposit as a guarantee measure. The bank provides a bank acceptance bill to the seller and buyer. Confirmed warehouse, as a new type of financing method, ensures payment for the seller; For buyers, it reduces financing costs; For banks, it ensures the safety of funds. The judgment in this case fully reflects the functional role of the people's court in supporting new types of financing methods and regulating the development of the financing market.

3、 Dispute between CCTV International Network Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Quandou Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. on Infringement of Work Information Network Communication Rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

China on the Tongue "is a large-scale food documentary produced by CCTV, which has had a strong social impact and enjoys high popularity after its broadcast. CCTV subsequently granted the copyright of the program to the plaintiff CCTV International Network Co., Ltd. On May 23, 2012, the Shanghai Jing'an Notary Office, upon the application of the plaintiff, notarized the defendant Shanghai Quandou Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. for providing online on-demand services for the involved programs on its website "Tudou Network" (www.tudou. com). The plaintiff believes that Tudou Network, without permission, provided online on-demand services during the hot broadcasting period of the program in question, seriously infringing on its legitimate rights and causing significant economic losses to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff sued the court and requested that the defendant compensate for the economic losses of 800000 yuan and pay a reasonable fee of 50000 yuan for investigation and evidence collection.

（2） Judgment results

The Minhang District People's Court of Shanghai and the First Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai have held that the work in question is a work created using similar cinematography methods as stipulated in China's Copyright Law and should be protected by the Copyright Law. All Tudou Company provides online on-demand services for the involved works on its website during the hot broadcast period without authorization, which is a typical infringement of the right to network dissemination of work information and should bear corresponding infringement liability. Quantu Company argues that it provides storage space services, and the work in question was uploaded by netizens, but no evidence has been provided to prove this claim; And the information about the actual uploader belongs to their own control and management scope, and should be provided by them. If they delete the original data on their own, which makes it impossible to identify the facts in this section, they should bear the adverse consequences. According to this judgment, Quantu Company shall compensate CCTV Network Company with an economic loss of 240000 yuan and a reasonable cost of 8000 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of infringement of the right to online dissemination of work information in the internet. The works involved in the case reflect a high degree of originality and enjoy high social awareness. As a professional video sharing website, Tudou Network is a highly influential professional network service provider. It spread the involved works without authorization during the hot broadcast period, and the infringement behavior lasted for a long time, causing significant economic losses to the rights holders. When determining the statutory compensation amount, the court fully considered factors such as the type of work involved, social awareness, nature of the infringement, as well as the business scale, business model, and influence of the infringing website, and awarded a total compensation amount of 248000 yuan. This not only helps to compensate for the economic losses of the rights holders, but also promotes self-discipline and industry management of various internet video providers, It also conforms to the trend of strengthening the protection of internet intellectual property rights in accordance with the law, and has a warning effect on the increasingly frequent cases of internet video infringement.

4、 Guo Desheng v. Administrative Penalty Case of the Land and Resources Bureau of Weihui City, Henan Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 2009, Guo Desheng built a breeding farm without going through land use procedures, occupying an actual land area of 220.50 square meters. On December 5, 2011, the Land and Resources Management Bureau of Weihui City, Henan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Weihui City Land and Resources Bureau) issued an administrative penalty decision (Wei Guo Tu Jian Zi (2011) No. 041) to the plaintiff Guo Desheng, requiring the plaintiff to demolish a new building of 220.50 square meters on illegally occupied 220.50 square meters of land, restore the land to its original state, and impose a fine of 4410 yuan. The plaintiff believes that the defendant's decision to impose punishment was incorrect in determining the facts, and has filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Weihui City, Henan Province, requesting the revocation of the punishment decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Weihui City, Henan Province believes that the plaintiff Guo Desheng's unauthorized occupation of land to build a breeding farm violates the relevant provisions of China's Land Management Law. The Weihui City Land and Resources Bureau should consider whether Guo Desheng's illegal occupation of land conforms to the overall local land use plan, An administrative penalty of demolishing buildings on illegally occupied land or confiscating buildings on illegally occupied land shall be imposed on Guo Desheng within a specified period of time. However, the drawings provided by the defendant indicating the specific location of Guo Desheng's illegal occupation of land were not accompanied by explanatory materials, and the defendant did not explain or explain the method for determining the location of the plaintiff's occupation of land in the court trial, making it impossible for the court to determine whether the land occupied by Guo Desheng is agricultural land or construction land, that is, whether the breeding farm constructed by the plaintiff conforms to the local land use overall plan, As a direct result, it is uncertain how the defendant should punish the plaintiff for their illegal behavior, namely whether to demolish or confiscate buildings on illegally occupied land. At the same time, according to the Administrative Penalty Law and other regulations, before the defendant makes a decision on the plaintiff to demolish a building within a specified time limit, which is a heavier administrative penalty, it should be decided through collective discussion by the leaders of the unit. However, the defendant did not provide evidence that the punishment decision made by the defendant to the plaintiff was decided through collective discussion by the leaders of the unit. Therefore, the main evidence of the defendant's punishment decision against the plaintiff is insufficient and does not comply with legal procedures, and should be revoked in accordance with the law. According to the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law, the judgment revokes the administrative penalty decision on the land illegal case made by the Weihui Municipal Land and Resources Bureau on December 5, 2011 against the plaintiff Guo Desheng, and the defendant shall handle it again.

After the first instance judgment was pronounced, neither party appealed, and the first instance judgment has taken legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

Article 38 (2) of the Administrative Penalty Law stipulates: "For complex or major illegal acts, the responsible persons of the administrative organs shall collectively discuss and decide on heavier administrative penalties." Article 27 of the Measures for the Investigation and Punishment of Land Illegal Cases by the National Land Administration Land illegal cases should be collectively reviewed by the leadership of the land management department, but the administrative head responsibility system should be implemented. The review should be recorded in writing and signed by the members participating in the review... "The above provisions establish a collective discussion system for the heads of administrative organs in the administrative penalty procedure, that is, before imposing heavier penalties on complex or major illegal acts, the heads of administrative organs should pass through party group meetings, joint meetings Conduct collective research through official meetings and other forms, and then make administrative penalty decisions.

Severe administrative penalties may have a significant impact on the rights of the punished person. If the penalty of demolishing buildings within a specified time limit is imposed by the Chinese land resources department in this case, once executed, it will result in irreversible consequences such as house loss. Even if the penalty decision is revoked through administrative litigation procedures, there is no longer a possibility of restoring the original state. Through collective discussions among leaders, it is not only possible to prevent individual leaders from abusing their power, but also to maximize the democratic and scientific nature of administrative decision-making, avoiding arbitrary decision-making.

5、 Dai Shihua v. Jinan Public Security Fire Brigade Fire Administrative Acceptance Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 24, 2011, Jinan Old City Renovation Company submitted an application for acceptance filing to the Jinan Public Security Fire Brigade, requesting a spot check and acceptance of the fire facilities in buildings 1-8 of the Shantytown Renovation Project south of Guanyi Street. After conducting a random inspection by the Fire Brigade of Jinan Public Security Bureau, on November 21, 2011, the Notice on the Results of Construction Project Fire Acceptance Filing (JGXYB [2011] No. 0172) was issued, confirming that the fire facilities of Building 1-8 of the Shantytown Renovation Project south of Guanyi Street passed the random inspection. On the same day, the filing results were announced in the public column of the fire supervision results of Shandong 365 Fire Service Network. Dai Shihua, a resident of Room 801, Unit 3, No. 6 of the project, believes that the installation of fire hydrant boxes in the building does not comply with the fire safety installation standards. The JigongXiaoyanbei [2011] No. 0172 "Notice on the Record Results of Construction Project Fire Acceptance" finds the facts wrong and files an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court of Jinan High tech Zone.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Jinan High tech Zone held in the first instance that the "Notice on the Filing Results of Construction Project Fire Inspection and Acceptance" is a technical acceptance notice, not a specific administrative act, and does not fall within the scope of administrative litigation by the People's Court. In accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law and other regulations, it ruled to dismiss the plaintiff Dai Shihua's lawsuit.

The Intermediate People's Court of Jinan City held in the second instance that the record keeping of fire safety acceptance for construction projects is the final step in the quality supervision and management of fire safety facilities for construction projects. The record keeping results include an assessment of whether the fire safety completion acceptance is qualified. According to the provisions of the Fire Protection Law, if the construction project fails to pass the acceptance by the public security fire department, it should be stopped from use. Therefore, the record keeping results of fire safety acceptance have binding force, The act of filing for fire inspection and acceptance has the nature of administrative confirmation, which is a specific administrative action of the fire administrative agency and falls within the scope of administrative litigation by the people's court. In accordance with Article 618 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the original ruling is revoked and the People's Court of Jinan High tech Zone is designated to continue the trial.

（3） Typical significance

Currently, the fire safety situation is unprecedentedly severe. As a front-end gateway for fire safety, the responsibility for fire acceptance in construction projects is significant, but it has always been separated from judicial review, resulting in low social attention, poor procedural transparency, and arbitrary exercise of power, making it difficult to fully play its role. This case clarifies for the first time the administrative confirmation attribute of fire inspection and acceptance behavior, thus incorporating it into the scope of administrative litigation, which has important rule significance and will be conducive to urging fire authorities to strictly fulfill their inspection responsibilities, and more conducive to ensuring the safety of people's lives and property. At the same time, through legal analysis, the fire department recognized the legitimacy of judicial review and actively prepared to participate in subsequent litigation. The court ultimately upheld the filing result notice. After the judgment, the case was extensively reported by multiple important media outlets such as "Dazhong Daily" and "Jinan Daily", and was included in Volume 7 of the "China Administrative Trial Cases" by the Supreme People's Court. It also won the second prize for excellent business achievements in administrative trials by the National Court in 2013, achieving good legal and social effects.