1. Basic facts of the case.
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Wang Moumou.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): XX District Branch of XX City Public Security Bureau.
In the course of the plaintiff Wang's visit to the XX City District Commission for Discipline Inspection to report the problem, he had an argument with the staff of the District Commission for Discipline Inspection and snatched the file from the staffAt about 9 a.m. on June 2, 2016, plaintiff Wang Moumou went to the District Commission for Discipline Inspection again to report the problem, and after negotiating with the staff, he made a lot of noise while waiting in the lobby of the office building. After the XX City District Commission for Discipline Inspection staff called the police, the XX City Public Security Bureau XX District Bureau Linyin Road Police Station sent the police to accept the case. Subsequently, the police at the police station questioned the plaintiff Wang. On the same day, Zhou XX and Zhang XX, staff members of the XX City District Commission for Discipline Inspection, each provided a personal testimony to the defendant, and the XX City District Commission for Discipline Inspection Office of the CPC provided the defendant with an explanation of the petitions of Wang XX and others on that day. On the same day, the defendant XX Municipal Public Security Bureau informed plaintiff Wang of the facts, reasons, and basis for the proposed punishment decision, and plaintiff Wang signed the interrogation record and notification record. On the same day, the defendant XX Municipal Public Security Bureau XX District Branch made a decision to punish the defendant in accordance with the provisions of Article 23, Paragraph 1 (1) of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China", and imposed a penalty of five days of administrative detention on the plaintiff Wang. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of XX City.
2. The opinion of the court of first instance.
The court of first instance held that, in accordance with Article 7 of the "Law of the People's Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishments" and Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the "Provisions on the Procedures for the Handling of Administrative Cases by Public Security Organs", the defendant XX Municipal Public Security Bureau XX District Branch had the statutory duty to make a penalty decision for violations of the administration of public security within its jurisdiction. Citizens have the right to lodge complaints, accusations or reports with the relevant state organs, but they must exercise them strictly in accordance with the law. The evidence provided by the defendant can prove that the plaintiff snatched the file and made a big noise in the office building in the process of reporting the problem to the XX Municipal Commission for Discipline Inspection, and the plaintiff's behavior has constituted disrupting the order of the unit. Therefore, the court of first instance found that the defendant's administrative penalty decision of Tang Rungong (Lin) Xing Penalty Decision Zi [2016] No. 0581 made on June 2, 2016 was conclusive, and the applicable laws and regulations were correct and in accordance with legal procedures. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 69 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment rejected the plaintiff Wang's litigation claim.
3. The opinion of the court of second instance.
Wang Moumou appealed, saying: (1) The original judgment was not sufficient to use ** materials as the basis for determining the facts. According to this **, it cannot be determined that the appellant snatched the file of the discipline inspection staff, nor can it be determined that the appellant made a lot of noise. (2) During the court trial, the court repeatedly deprived the appellant of his right to cross-examine evidence and did not allow the appellant to ask questions. (3) The facts and evidence found in the original judgment were insufficient and the grounds were insufficient.
This court is of the opinion that, in accordance with Article 23, Paragraph 1 (1) of the "Law of the People's Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishments", "anyone who commits any of the following acts shall be given a warning or a fine of not more than 200 yuan;where the circumstances are more serious, they are to be detained for between 5 and 10 days, and may be concurrently fined up to 500 RMB: (1) Disrupting the order of organs, groups, enterprises, or public institutions, making it impossible to carry out work, production, business, medical treatment, teaching, or scientific research normally, and serious losses have not yet been caused" The appellee, the XX Municipal Public Security Bureau and a district office, held that the appellant had disrupted the order of the unit and that the circumstances were more serious, but failed to provide corresponding evidence to substantiate it, so the administrative penalty decision made by the appellee XX Municipal Public Security Bureau was based on unclear facts, insufficient evidence, and erroneous application of law, and should be revoked and a new administrative act should be taken. The original judgment erred in the application of law.
4. The judgment of the court of second instance.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 70 (2) and Article 89 (1) (2) of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
Judgment Results: 1. Revoke the administrative judgment of the People's Court of XX District, XX City, Hebei Province;
2. Revoke the administrative penalty decision made by the appellee's XX Municipal Public Security Bureau;
3. Order the appellee, XX Municipal Public Security Bureau, to make a new administrative act within 60 days of the effective date of this judgment.
The first-instance and second-instance case acceptance fees of 50 yuan each are to be borne by the appellee's XX District Public Security Bureau Bureau.
This judgment is final.
Lawyer Zhu Lijia.