On June 8, 2005, defendant Xing gathered defendant Yang Moumou and drove the Antelope 1300 sedan back from Baoji City, Shaanxi Province to Jiaojiang District, Taizhou City to plan another robbery (previously, Xing Moumou had also committed criminal acts such as robbery). The two of them spent a few yuan at their temporary residence in Xingmou, Cuihua New Village, Jiaojiang District, to purchase a 16 ring fireworks and tape paper. They prepared discarded telephone cables, divided the fireworks into 8 rings, and then peeled off the outer packaging paper of the fireworks, attached several waste telephone cables, and wrapped them with tape paper to make two items similar to explosive devices. At the same time, the two people also purchased wigs and other tools for the crime, which were stored in the trunk of the car for use in robbery. On the night of the same month, public security officers arrested the defendants Xing and Yang on suspicion of robbery and rape at the temporary residence of Xing in Cuihua New Village. The defendant Yang immediately voluntarily confessed to the fact that he used explosives as a means of robbery, and explained the hiding place of the car and explosives. Subsequently, police officers confiscated cars, two bundles of items, wigs, and other items in the garage. After inspection by the Zhejiang Provincial Public Security Department and the Jiaojiang Branch of the Taizhou Public Security Bureau, it was determined that the two bundles of items contained explosive components and were explosive devices.

The prosecution believes that:

The defendant Xing, along with Yang, actively prepared tools for the crime of stealing others' property and manufactured explosives for the purpose of illegal possession. Their actions have violated Article 125, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, and they should be held criminally responsible for the crime of illegal manufacturing of explosives.

Dispute focus and defense process:

1. Qualitative Analysis of Yang's Criminal Behavior

After capturing Yang, the investigation authorities classified him as suspected of robbery. After multiple meetings with Yang, I further understood the facts of the case and believed that the investigation authorities' characterization of Yang should be correct. Moreover, there is a legal circumstance in Yang's behavior, that is, the robbery is still in the preparatory stage.

The prosecution's viewpoint: Yang should constitute the crime of illegally manufacturing explosive materials. The reason is: 1. The item that Yang participated in the production has been identified as an "explosive device"; 2. Yang was charged with the crime of illegally manufacturing explosives for the purpose of robbery, in order to carry out a criminal purpose with the method and result of his criminal behavior. Based on the principle of heavy behavior attracting light behavior, Yang was charged with constituting the crime of illegally manufacturing explosives.

For this reason, I have met with Yang multiple times to understand his criminal intent and the manufacturing plot of the "explosive". I have carefully and meticulously reviewed and analyzed the entire file, and believe that the prosecution's characterization of Yang in this case is inappropriate. Yang's behavior should constitute a preparation for robbery. The reason is: 1. The items manufactured by Yang do not belong to explosive devices within the meaning of criminal law. If they are explosive devices, they must not only have three elements: explosives, containers, and initiating equipment, but also must be interconnected, that is, they can ignite the explosives in the containers after igniting the initiating equipment, thereby achieving the effect of explosion. The "explosives" manufactured by the two defendants in this case have been inspected and identified by relevant personnel such as the Jiaojiang District Public Security Bureau, and it is believed that they meet the constitutive requirements of the explosive device. However, it is not clear whether the fuse is related to the explosive, that is, whether the fuse can burn normally and ignite the explosive after ignition. According to the confessions of the two defendants, they both mentioned that the "explosives" they manufactured were fake explosives, which were dismantled using purchased fireworks, unpacked, and then installed in the shape of ordinary explosives, fixed with wires and tape. When I met with Yang, Yang also stated to me multiple times that while manufacturing the "explosive" with Xing, Xing had removed the fuse from the original fireworks. The existing fuse is just an item like an electric wire that cannot be ignited normally. Even if ignited, it cannot detonate the explosive, it is only used to scare people. According to the statements of the two defendants mentioned above, if the item is indeed what they said, it is a fake explosive, and the existing fuse will not detonate the explosive, then its so-called fuse does not belong to the initiating equipment element of the three elements of explosive devices in the meaning of criminal law; 2. The so-called "explosive device" in this case is actually fireworks and firecrackers. Yang and others only split it, and fireworks and firecrackers do not fall within the scope of adjustment of explosives stipulated in the criminal law; 3. In terms of usage purposes, the two defendants were also used to intimidate the victims during future robberies, rather than to detonate them, let alone the fact that they could not detonate normally.

2. Does Yang constitute voluntary surrender

According to the "opinion of this court" section in the indictment, it was not determined that Yang surrendered himself. In this regard, I believe that Yang should have voluntarily surrendered. The reasons are as follows: 1. According to the investigation provided by the public security organs, the basis for the arrest of Xing and Yang by the public security organs is Zhou's report, and the content of Zhou's report is unrelated to the criminal facts involved by Yang. That is to say, the public security organs did not arrest Yang on suspicion of manufacturing explosives or robbery. 2. According to the time when Xing and Yang confessed the fact of manufacturing explosives to the public security organs, the defendant Yang was earlier than Xing. Yang stated the entire crime process in the first record of the public security organs, and it can be reflected from the record that the public security organs only knew that there were explosive shaped items stored in Xing's trunk before, but did not know where the items came from or what they were used for, All the facts were voluntarily confessed by Yang to the public security organs. Based on the above facts, although Yang was taken compulsory measures, the public security organs did not have the knowledge of the criminal facts that Yang confessed to him, and the crimes he confessed were also different from the facts and charges based on which the public security organs arrested him at the time. Therefore, it should meet the constitutive requirements of special voluntary surrender and be determined that he has committed a voluntary surrender.

The court held that

Although the two bundles of items seized in this case were found by the public security department to contain explosive components and belong to explosive devices, they are not explosives within the meaning of criminal law. The Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation on the Specific Application of Laws in Criminal Cases of Illegal Manufacturing, Trading, Transport of Firearms, Ammunition, and Other Matters" did not include fireworks and firecrackers in the scope of adjustment of explosives specified in the Criminal Law, Only the main raw material for producing fireworks and firecrackers, pyrotechnic powder, is listed as the object of criminal law adjustment, and the production of pyrotechnic powder can only constitute a crime if a certain amount is reached. In this case, the defendant wrapped the fireworks and firecrackers with waste wires and tape, and transformed them into so-called explosive devices. Not only can they not submit the explosive power, but they also reduce the original power, which is not enough to endanger public safety, that is, the criminal object does not constitute a crime, Subjectively, it only prepares the tools used to intimidate victims for the purpose of committing robbery, which does not meet the constitutive requirements of the crime of illegally manufacturing explosives and belongs to robbery preparation. Although the public security organs arrested the defendant Yang on suspicion of committing a crime, they only suspected his involvement in the kidnapping and robbery of Ding and Guo, and did not grasp the fact that Yang had prepared tools and explosives for the purpose of committing the robbery. Yang voluntarily confessed the criminal facts and led the public security officers to investigate the tools of the crime. He should be deemed to have surrendered himself and may be given a lighter punishment according to law. And consider that the defense provided by the defender is consistent with the facts, and adopt it, which can reduce the punishment in accordance with the law.

Lawyer Lu Huafu from Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm