Current location - Plastic Surgery and Aesthetics Network - Plastic surgery and medical aesthetics - Criminal cases of destroying inflammable and explosive equipment
Criminal cases of destroying inflammable and explosive equipment
Case analysis of the crime of destroying flammable and explosive equipment

Defendant Li, male, born in196565438+1kloc-0/8, Han nationality, with low education, is unemployed and lives in Dongsheng Village, Liuhe Town, Qinggang County, Heilongjiang Province. 2002 10, 17 was criminally detained on suspicion of damaging inflammable and explosive equipment and was arrested on June 30, 2002. Now detained in Daqing detention center.

Defendant Nie Mou, male, born on February 29th, 1968+65438, Han nationality, with primary school education and no occupation, lives in Group 16, Daohe Township, Li County, Hunan Province. 1992 1.24 was reeducated through labor for 3 years by Daqing reeducation-through-labor committee for theft; 1994 was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment by the people's court of Saltu District on June 9, and released on June 3 1997+ 1. 1998165438+1October 18 was reeducation through labor for three years by Daqing reeducation-through-labor committee for theft. On June, 2002, 65438+ 101was sentenced by Daqing Intermediate People's Court for allegedly destroying inflammable and explosive equipment. Now detained in Daqing detention center.

Daqing People's Procuratorate accused the defendants Li and Nie of the crime of destroying inflammable and explosive equipment with the indictmentNo. 1 (2003), and filed a public prosecution with our hospital on June 5438+1October 7, 2003. Our college formed a collegiate bench in accordance with the law and heard the case in public on March 5, 2003. Ren Hongliang, the procurator of Daqing People's Procuratorate, appeared in court to support the public prosecution, and the defendants Nie and Li attended the lawsuit. The trial is now over.

The People's Procuratorate of Daqing City accused the defendants Li and Nie of two crimes of destroying inflammable and explosive equipment, resulting in the economic loss of light hydrocarbons of RMB 2,9851yuan. The actions of both defendants constitute the crime of destroying flammable and explosive equipment. In the same crime, the defendant Nie was the principal offender and Li was an accessory.

Defendant Nie argued that he did not go to the crime scene for the second charge.

Defendant Li has no objection to the crime of destroying flammable and explosive equipment accused by the public prosecution agency. In fact, Li argued that the first crime he participated in was given by Nie and the oil was sold by Nie. The second case involved was given by Gu Laowu, and the money was given to Nie by Gu Laowu.

It was found through trial that:

1, 200 1 one day in August, the defendants Li, Nie and Wang Zhifu (both sentenced) fled to the 5.5km from the third oil and gas processing brigade of the Natural Gas Company to the Nanya light hydrocarbon pipeline. Wang Zhifu welded the valve, Nie held the brazing rod, and Li damaged the light hydrocarbon pipeline with a hammer, stealing 3.5 tons of light hydrocarbon, worth 6779 yuan. After selling the stolen goods, Li got 2700 yuan.

One day in February, 20001year, the defendants Li and Nie, together with Gu Laowu and Lao Yan (both handled separately), fled to the 8 km from Hongya to Xingyi-light hydrocarbon pipeline of the first oil and gas treatment team of the natural gas company, and destroyed the light hydrocarbon pipeline by welding valves and swinging hammers, stealing 0/6 ton of light hydrocarbon/kloc-0, with a value of RMB 23,072. After the stolen goods are sold, Nie gets 4000 yuan and Li gets 1000 yuan.

Evidence of the above criminal facts of the defendants Nie and Li: 1. The defendants' confessions are mutually confirmed; 2, light hydrocarbon pipeline unit pipeline damage and light hydrocarbon loss proof materials; 3, the price department of light hydrocarbon pricing certificate. The source of the above evidence is legal, which is confirmed by our court after cross-examination and appraisal in court.

We believe that in the first case brought by the public prosecution agency, the defendant Nie Mou was the principal offender and the defendant Li Mou was an accessory. The second criminal fact of the prosecution is that Gu Laowu, who is at large, is the principal offender, while Li and Nie did not play a major role in the crime scene and were accomplices. The public prosecution agency accused the defendants Li and Nie of having clear criminal facts, sufficient evidence and correct accusations. The defendant Nie was convicted of two crimes, the first crime was sentenced, and the second crime did not play a major destructive role, with a large amount of RMB 23,072, which can be given a lighter punishment according to law. Defendant Li participated in two crimes, with the value of RMB 2,9851yuan, which was relatively large. He is an accessory to the same crime. He pleaded guilty after being brought to justice and can be given a lighter punishment according to law. Defendant Nie argued that he didn't go to the crime scene when he committed the crime for the second time. Because the co-defendant Li confirmed it, his defense reason was not established and was not adopted. Defendant Li's excuse was established and adopted. In order to protect oilfield production and construction and maintain social order, according to the destructive role played by the second defendant in the crime of jointly destroying inflammable and explosive equipment and the plot of sharing stolen goods, and according to the provisions of Articles 118, 25, 26, 27 and 70 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the verdict is as follows:

Defendant Nie was convicted of destroying inflammable and explosive equipment and sentenced to three years in prison. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and deprived of political rights for life, and decided to execute life imprisonment and deprive of political rights for life.

Defendant Li was convicted of destroying inflammable and explosive equipment and sentenced to three years in prison.

(The term of imprisonment is calculated from the date when the judgment is executed. If the person is detained before the execution of the judgment, one day of detention will be converted into one day of imprisonment, that is, from June 65438+1October 65438+July 2002 to June 65438+June 2005).