the morning of March 19, public concern” 5.8 “The Palace theft of sentence had been passed. In accordance with the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court ruled that: the judgment Shi Baikui 13 years imprisonment, deprivation of political rights for three years and a fine of NT $ 10,003. WASHINGTON Reporter photo by Kim Suk (Reporter Zhang Zhongjiang) National Palace Museum exhibits BEIJING, May 15,
of identity theft on the 14th usher in a second trial, the court ultimately to maintain the first instance 13 years of the term. Shibai Kui defense lawyer Huang Changyong said in an interview to finalize the case of stolen goods value is not to determine this case in the past judicial practice is rare. The value of goods stolen or should be clear.
the incident more than a year after the concern of the Forbidden City of identity theft on the 14th at the Beijing Higher People’s Court upheld the sentence. The court ultimately upheld the original verdict is made, theft to imposed Dan Bokui 13 years in prison and sentenced to deprivation of political rights for three years, and fined 13,000 yuan ruled.
May 8, 2011, from the Palace Museum in Beijing, Danbo Kui stolen two according to the Tibetan Museum exhibits 9. After the incident, has triggered great concern, the security level of the Palace Museum in Beijing thus be questioned. March 19, 2012, the National Palace Museum exhibits stolen case of First Instance pronounced the verdict. Dan Baikui defendant was sentenced to 13 years in prison and deprived of political rights for three years and fined 13,000 yuan. After the first trial, Dan Baikui difficult to accept 13 years in prison sentences and heavy grounds of appeal.the Shi Bokui lawyer for
: stolen the value of items undetermined conviction in the past rare
14 days after the second instance verdict of
, Huang Changyong WASHINGTON reporter interviewed finalized, in the case of the stolen items value is not to determine this case in the past judicial practice is rare.
Huang Zhangyong personally think that, strictly in accordance with the law, the value of the stolen goods should be made clear. Legal provisions are asking for is a loss of how the amount of damage caused to the victims of much value, and these should be clear, before conviction.
in the value of goods stolen is unknown, said a huge amount, just a guess. The exhibits, the amount may be very large, perhaps not, if the The Imitation damage not.
Huangchang Yong said, if you want the judgment more stand the test of history, or more provisions of the law, at least to the identification of the basic value of the authority finds that the cost value is given.
cases into the basic conclusion lawyer said Dan Baikui emotions no large fluctuations in
because China is a second instance of Final Appeal system, after the results came in on the 14th, but also means that the basic concern cases come to an end. As a defense lawyer, said Huang Changyong Although the second instance there are still ambiguities, not enough convincing, but the possibility to change the results much.
he said, after the second instance verdict, only the wrong case, be possible to a successful appeal, the probability is very small. The case is really exhibits elsewhere at a later stage to prove that the Forbidden City on display is a fake, it might be possible to change the outcome.after the day sentence is
, the Dan Baikui state of the case the defendant’s minds. Huang Changyong said he would also like to meet with him as soon as possible. Earlier in the case proceedings, and he has also told that he has commuted and upheld two may. Shibai Kui, I also have some mental preparation. He is being held this time, also come into contact with a lot of knowledge about the trial of a certain understanding of the law.
from the day the case, the time of sentencing did not see Dan Baikui mood fluctuations.the
the outside world are highly concerned about the Forbidden City of identity theft lawyer, said the judgment premeditated or spur of the moment is still controversial
one does not look complicated theft, so lead to the legal profession and the public concern, the Shibai Kui steal the location – the Forbidden City is naturally a great relationship.
the focus of the case where? How would the impact? The Huang Zhangyong gives his own answer.
He believes that after the end of the first instance, from the reaction of the legal profession and the community, on this side of the defense of opinion is quite agree. There are three particularly noteworthy in the case: First, the Forbidden City is a special status, something stolen in the Forbidden City whether it should impose heavier penalties: The second theft of works of art, exhibits, whether to increase the sentence on the defendant; although the third, similar to Dan Bokui this too The Forbidden City idea theft, but the items stolen was the first time I saw belongs to the spur of the moment or premeditated.
Huangchang Yong said that the first two issues in the law have no basis. Before there was judicial interpretation of the attempted theft Museum, conviction and sentencing. But this explanation has been annulled in 2010.
but also never heard of the theft of works of art to impose heavier penalties. Criminal Law Amendment had previously provided the precious relics of the theft of state can be sentenced to death. The relics are historical legacy of the cultural relics department identification, art or high-end consumer goods is not listed here.
planned or spur of the moment, said Huang Changyong, Dan Baikui transcripts account for the idea there was theft of the Forbidden City, but to steal something is the first time I saw. This theft to be considered premeditated?
For example, he said, many of such cases, for example want to steal people a cow, the results had stolen a sheep back. Another example is the bank to see a chair looking to steal out of this count of theft of financial institutions. Theft of financial institutions is the theft of one of the funds, theft of a chair count?
Huangchang Yong said that cases such as this, and now the law has not clearly defined, there are still some controversial.the share: welcome the , comment I want to Comments the micro Bo Recommended | today’s microblogging hot (edit: SN056)