"A case within a case?"In Shangrao, Jiangxi, after 16 years of marriage, the man found that his three daughters were not biological. However, the wife not only failed to realize her mistake, but also lit a "cupola" at her husband's house in the early hours of the morning, causing her elderly parents-in-law to be frightened and causing property damage. After the incident, the wife and lover were administratively punished. The man considered it a crime.
*: Upstream News).
After Mr. Chen married his wife Yu, Yu cheated in marriage for at least 16 years and gave birth to three daughters with other men, which attracted the attention of netizens. At present, Mr. Chen has taken Yu to court.
Mr. Chan said that he would not accept mediation, and shouted that he hoped that he would stand up and face it, regardless of whether the biological father of the three daughters was one person or three people.
While this case sparked heated discussions among netizens, upstream news reported that there was also a "case within a case" in this case. That is, after Mr. Chen learned that his three daughters were all his own, his wife Yu and his sympathizer Wu became angry, and at about 0:30 on May 28 last year, they detonated the "cupola" at Mr. Chen's home by using a lit mosquito coil as a "delay" device, causing the serious consequences of Mr. Chen's elderly parents being seriously frightened.
It is understood that the "cupola" was ignited in front of Mr. Chen's house and in the bathroom window, and the sound could even be heard at the police station 2 kilometers away, and the neighbors were also awakened.
The administrative punishment decision shows that ** confirmed the facts of Yu and Wu's violations. After identification, the behavior of the two caused economic losses of 582 yuan, and Yu and Wu were detained for 8 days and 10 days respectively.
Article 49 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law stipulates that anyone who intentionally damages public or private property shall be detained for 5-10 days and may be fined not more than 500 yuan;where the circumstances are more serious, they are to be detained for 10-15 days and may be concurrently fined up to 1,000 RMB.
That is to say, ** believes that the behavior of the two is intentional destruction of public and private property, but because the value does not reach more than 5,000 yuan and the amount is large, it will be punished as illegal, and the circumstances are relatively minor and no fine will be imposed.
However, Mr. Chen believes that the duo not only caused financial losses, but also caused his elderly parents to be frightened, especially his 78-year-old father, who was admitted to the hospital for seven days due to acute emergency disorders the day after the incident.
At present, the staff of the local competent department said that on the basis of the previous investigation, relevant procedures have been initiated and will be dealt with in accordance with laws and regulations.
So is Mr. Chen's questioning reasonable?How should they defend their rights?
First of all, intentional destruction of public or private property refers to the illegal and criminal acts of the perpetrator using various means to intentionally destroy the victim's public or private property.
The deliberate destruction of public or private property infringes only on the property rights of the victims!
Picking quarrels and provoking troubles is different, as it not only infringes on the property rights of the victims, but also disrupts the normal life order of citizens.
Specifically, in this case, Wu and Yu took revenge based on the discovery of their relationship, and their subjective purpose may have been to achieve their purpose of revenge by destroying Mr. Chen's property.
However, objectively, the actions of the two not only infringed on Mr. Chen's property rights, but also disrupted the normal rest of Mr. Chen, his parents and surrounding neighbors. Even the police station two kilometers away could hear the loud sound of a cupola.
In other words, the acts of the two not only infringed on Mr. Chen's property rights, but also disrupted the normal social order, so the author personally believes that it may be more accurate to characterize this case as picking quarrels and provoking trouble.
Article 26 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law stipulates that anyone who picks quarrels and provokes trouble shall be detained for 5-10 days and may be fined not more than 500 yuan;where the circumstances are more serious, they are to be detained for 10-15 days and may be concurrently fined up to 1,000 RMB.
Secondly, Article 95 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law stipulates that after the investigation of a public security case is completed, the public security organ shall make the following dispositions according to different circumstances: (1) Where there is indeed an illegal act that should be punished in accordance with the law, a punishment decision shall be made according to the severity of the circumstances and the specific circumstances;(3) Where the illegal conduct is already suspected of being a crime, it shall be transferred to the competent organ for investigation of criminal responsibility in accordance with law;(4) Where it is discovered that the offender has committed other illegal acts, the relevant administrative departments shall be notified to handle the violation of the administration of public security at the same time as a punishment decision is made.
Article 27 of the Administrative Punishment Law stipulates that if an illegal act is suspected of being a crime, the administrative organ shall promptly transfer the case to the judicial organ and pursue criminal responsibility in accordance with law. Where it is not necessary to pursue criminal responsibility or be waived from criminal punishment in accordance with law, but an administrative punishment shall be given, the judicial organs shall promptly transfer the case to the relevant administrative organs.
The administrative punishment enforcement organs and the judicial organs shall strengthen coordination and cooperation, establish and complete systems for transferring cases, strengthen the connection between the transfer and reception of evidence materials, and improve mechanisms for circulating information on case handling.
In short, if there is evidence to prove that the illegal act constitutes a criminal offense after the administrative punishment, the perpetrator can still be investigated for criminal responsibility.
Article 293 of the Criminal Law stipulates that anyone who commits the crime of picking quarrels and provoking troubles shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or short-term detention and shall also be fined.
That is to say, as long as it is found that the acts of Wu and Yu have constituted a criminal offense after initiating the re-investigation procedure, the criminal responsibility of the two for the joint crime can still be investigated.
Finally, Wu and Yu should also compensate for economic losses.
Article 1165 of the Civil Code stipulates that if a wrongful act causes civil damage to others, the actor shall be liable for it.
Specifically, as long as it is an illegal or criminal act, the civil law will be regarded as a wrongful act. Therefore, no matter how the punishment is determined, as long as it can be proved that there is a causal relationship between the wrongdoing of the two people and the damage caused, the actor can be required to bear civil tort liability for this.
In other words, the two caused damage to the doors and windows of Mr. Chen's house, which has been confirmed, and he should be compensated for this.
Therefore, as long as Mr. Chen can prove that his father's hospitalization also has a causal relationship with their acts, he should also compensate for the corresponding medical expenses.
So do you think that the behavior of the two constitutes the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble?
Follow @Juan's opinion!Let's look at life and learn legal knowledge from practical cases!