When I think of my wife having to raise the child alone with hard work...

He was in a very uncomfortable mood.

...

Jincheng.

Law Pioneer Law Firm.

Zhang Wei temporarily declined legal consultation and sat alone in the office.

We are focusing on a new example.

This eucalyptus...

The person in charge of a 4S store came to him and asked him to help defend.

The items are caused by spare parts replacement in the automotive industry.

It was originally a civil dispute.

The parties involved...

But he was sent in for theft.

After hearing this, his first reaction was that it was related to someone.

This style of behavior is so familiar.

As expected.

After the explanation of Caviar Gold, the owner of the car that was replaced with spare parts was Qin Mu!

I learned the causes and consequences.

He was also very decisive and decided to take over the defense of this case.

"This time... I will definitely reduce it!"

He took a deep breath and a strong fighting spirit ignited in his eyes.

After so many items.

He has discovered...

As long as the opponent is Qin Mu, he rarely succeeds in defending.

Even though he performed well.

But there will always be some trouble.

Either commit perjury in court, scold the judge, or roar in court...

Rarely achieve breakthrough results in sentence reduction.

"This is really a bit difficult to deal with."

Then.

He took out the computer and began to analyze the defense ideas this time.

The items are derived from the replacement of spare parts of the car.

It was originally under the jurisdiction of the Three Guarantee Law, but it was suddenly transferred to the Criminal Law.

The behavior of the person involved, Niu Huan and Chang Yingcai...

It does constitute the crime of theft.

They are perfectly in line with the conviction of the crime of theft and cannot be avoided.

Criminal responsibility cannot be escaped.

Combined with the multiple executions of stealing spare parts, using inferior products as good products, and trying to conceal the facts of the crime, the circumstances constitute a serious situation.

In accordance with the relevant criminal law, a fixed-term imprisonment of more than three years and less than ten years will be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment and a fine.

also.

Then, based on Niu Huan and Chang Yingcai steal the value of spare parts for profit many times, the sentencing range is calculated.

The more profits are...

The heavier the sentence.

"The sentence reduction of this case... does not seem to be."

Zhang Wei frowned and thought about it carefully.

No circumstances that can be found that can be applied to statutory commutation of sentences.

There are actually more than twenty cases of commutation of sentences.

Including minors, disabled people, mentally ill people, pregnant women, elderly people, emergency avoidance, attempted crime, suspension of crime, coercion, instigation of crime, accomplice, meritorious performance, surrender, etc.

Many of the incidents he encountered before had more or less a commutation of sentences.

However……

Niu Huan's case perfectly avoided these plots.

First, Niu Huan and Chang Yingcai are both people with full criminal responsibility, not minors.

Second, they were arrested because they called the police and there was no surrender.

Third, the two are not special groups, not pregnant women, elderly people, disabled people, mentally ill people, etc.

Fourth, the two stolen spare parts by intentional purpose, with the intention of making illegal profits, and there is no attempt or suspension of crime.

fifth……

all in all.

The amount of sentence reduction for two people is very small.

If you want to seek a commutation of sentence, it seems that you only have regular active confession and acceptance of punishment.

However, actively pleading guilty and accepting punishment can be reduced by up to one or two months.

It seems insignificant for a ten-year sentence.

"It seems that we can only defend against the crime of embezzlement..."

Zhang Wei pondered for a moment and murmured.

According to the Criminal Law, if the crime of theft is serious, he will be sentenced to more than three years, not more than ten years in prison and fined.

And the crime of embezzlement...

In terms of sentencing, it seems lighter.

Article 270 of the Criminal Law stipulates that if the property of another person who is kept on behalf of him or her own property is illegally taken for himself and the amount is large and he or she refuses to return it, he or she shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years, detention or fine.

If the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, the sentence shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than two years but not more than five years and a fine.

Even if the circumstances are serious, this crime will only last for five years!

And theft...

The highest sentence can reach life imprisonment!

For example, stealing national treasures, precious cultural relics, etc.

These two sins seem to be similar, but there are quite a difference.

Generally speaking.

The two are different in terms of content and time of intentional crime.

The perpetrator of the crime of embezzlement realizes that he illegally possesses other people's property he already possesses by non-violent means, and the motive for the crime arises after the act occurs.

For example, a taxi driver found a passenger's cell phone when he was finishing his shift.

Then take it for yourself.

In this way, it cannot be convicted of theft, but should be convicted of the encroachment.

The crime of theft is generally to know that others hold property or the owner of property, and thus steal other people's property by secret methods.

It has direct intentional purpose.

For example, pickpockets on the bus, thieves, etc.

also.

The crime of embezzlement also requires the perpetrator to have the act of refusing to return it or repaid it afterwards.

Constituting for forcibly encroached on.

Theft is not required. Even if it is found and returned voluntarily, it will constitute a crime!

so……

The three-guarantee method does not apply to this incident.
To be continued...