论文部分内容阅读
2006年4月21日晚10时,许霆带着内有175元的工资卡到广州市天河区黄埔大道某银行ATM取款机上取款。取出1000元后,他惊讶地发现银行卡账户里只被扣了1元,狂喜之下,许霆连续取款5.4万元。当晚,许霆回到住处,将此事告诉了同事郭安山。两人随即再次前往取款,之后反复操作多次。后经警方查实,许霆先后取款171笔,合计17.5万元;郭安山取款1.8万元。事后,二人携款潜逃。2007年11月7日,郭安山向公安机关投案自首,并全额退还赃款1.8万元。经广州市天河区人民法院审理后,认定其构成盗窃罪,但考虑到其有自首和主动退赃情节,故对其判处有期徒刑一年,并处罚金1000元。许霆潜逃一年后,于2007年5月被警方抓获。2007年11月20日,广州市中级人民法院审理后认为,许霆以非法占有为目的,伙同同案人采用秘密手段,盗窃金融机构,数额特别巨大,行为已构成盗窃罪,遂判处许霆无期徒刑,剥夺政治权利终身,并处没收个人财产。案件上诉到广东省高级人民法院,广东省高院以“案件事实不清,证据不足”为由发回重审。广州中院于2008年2月22日开庭重审。2008年3月31日,广州中院适用刑法第63条第2款关于“特殊减轻处罚”的规定,以盗窃罪改判许霆有期徒刑五年,追缴所有赃款,并处2万元罚金。2008年4月9日,许霆坚持认为自己的行为只是民事关系上的过失,而不是刑事犯罪,不应该构成盗窃罪,再次向广东省高院提起上诉。2008年5月22日,广东省高级人民法院驳回许霆的上诉,维持原判,并准备上报最高人民法院核准。许霆案本身及其判决在社会上引起了广泛关注。在刑事法学界,许霆案的定性与量刑也引发了广泛的争议。本刊近期收到的有关许霆案的讨论稿件有数十篇之多即为明证。综观学界对于许霆案的讨论,大多局限于本案的定性和量刑等具体问题。事实上,本刊认为,可以把许霆案作为一个典型的标本,对中国的刑事司法做多角度多侧面的深度“发掘”。基于这种考虑,本刊选择了其中的三篇,以飨读者。
At 10:00 on April 21, 2006, Xu Ting with a 175 yuan salary card to a bank in Guangzhou Tianhe District, Huangpu Road ATM cash machine withdrawals. Removed 1000 yuan, he was surprised to find that the bank card account was only deducted 1 yuan, ecstasy, Xu Ting continuous withdrawal of 54,000 yuan. That night, Xu Ting back to the residence, told the matter Guo Ansan colleagues. The two then went to withdraw money again, after repeated operation several times. After the police verified, Xu Ting has 171 withdrawals, a total of 175,000 yuan; Guo Anshan withdrawal 18,000 yuan. Afterwards, two absconded with money. November 7, 2007, Guo Anshan surrendered to the public security organs, and a full refund of illicit money 18,000 yuan. After being tried by the People’s Court of Tianhe District, Guangzhou, it was found guilty of theft, but given that it had surrendered itself and took the initiative to return it, it was sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine of 1,000 yuan. Xu Ting absconded a year later, in May 2007 was arrested by the police. November 20, 2007, Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court hearing that, Xu Ting for the purpose of illegal possession, together with the co-villagers use of secret means to steal financial institutions, a huge amount of money, the act constituted a theft, then sentenced Xu Ting life imprisonment Deprived of political rights for life and confiscated personal property. The case was appealed to the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province and Guangdong Provincial High Court for retrial on the basis of “the facts of the case are not clear and the evidence is insufficient.” Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court retrial on February 22, 2008. On March 31, 2008, Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court applied the provisions of Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Law on the “Special Mitigation Penalty” and sentenced Xu Ting to five years’ imprisonment for theft. It also recovered all the stolen money and imposed a fine of 20,000 yuan. On April 9, 2008, Xu Ting insisted that his behavior was only a negligence in civil relations, not a criminal offense, and should not constitute a crime of theft. He again appealed to the Guangdong Provincial High Court. On May 22, 2008, Guangdong Higher People’s Court rejected Xu Ting’s appeal and upheld the original verdict, and is ready to submit the case to the Supreme People’s Court for approval. Xu Ting case itself and its judgments in the community caused widespread concern. In criminal jurisprudence, Xu Ting case qualitative and sentencing also triggered a wide range of controversies. Recently, we have received dozens of articles about the Xu Ting case manuscript as evidence. Looking at the discussion of the Xu Ting case, mostly confined to the specific case of the qualitative and sentencing issues. In fact, we believe that the Xu Ting case can be used as a typical specimen to make a multi-dimensional and multi-lateral “discovery” of China’s criminal justice. Based on this consideration, the magazine selected three of them to readers.