A civil dispute in Yuzhou, Henan Province gradually turned into a criminal case, and the origin on February 12, 2018 was a conflict between a husband and wife, which led to mutual obstruction, and Ren was a semi-trailer driver.
Pulling goods for the couple, he was involved in a dispute between the two for no reason, and suffered an unjustified disaster, and after pulling it, Ren wanted to drive away, but he didn't expect the couple to start pulling each other.
The two sides were closed by Li Moupei and others, they engaged in friction, and the driver Ren could not go, blocked the road with a forklift, sealed Ren's car in the factory yard, and removed the wheel of the stone crusher.
They want to control this batch of goods and then continue to entangle, not to let Ren's vehicle leave, a person's power is limited, Ren has no way to resist, and this blockade is 44 days.
During the period, many times of communication and door-to-door requests were unsuccessful, and Li Moupei's father, Li Mouku, participated in it and was the main obstructor, repeatedly scolding Ren, so that the car was always impounded in the factory.
This is a huge harm to a driver, 20,000 yuan a month to repay the car loan, casually so a few months of entanglement will be cut off, Ren feels that the car deduction behavior is very bad, and intends to apply to the relevant departments to solve it.
caused damage to himself and needed to be dealt with appropriately, and the other party also took the initiative to ask for reconciliation, so he asked for compensation of 30,000 yuan, and the other party agreed that Ren would stop continuing to give feedback.
Li Mouku called the police and said that he was extortion, and Ren was taken away without responding after receiving compensation, and the court believed that the crime was convicted, mainly because the object of the claim should not be Li Mouku, and sentenced Ren to five months in a certain year.
Reasonableness of recovery.
When suffering unwarranted infringement, it should have the right to recover, it was Li Moupei who seized Ren's vehicle, but the person who actually prevented the vehicle from leaving was Li Mouku, and the right to speak is heavier, and it is inevitable to pressure Li Mouku to ask for compensation.
The key to what happened is that the driver is innocent, the subjective purpose is to recover the vehicle, and someone must be responsible for the loss suffered by the owner, and the loss of 44 days is detained, and the perpetrator of the infringement should be compensated in accordance with the law.
According to the market, the amount demanded by the parties is not excessive, a trailer is not in operation for a month and a half, and the basic losses suffered must be calculated clearly, and it is reasonable to recover 30,000 yuan.
This is only the minimum car loan repayment, and he didn't say anything about delaying work, so Ren didn't subjectively want to blackmail or ask for a sky-high price with a lion's mouth, and it should not be determined that he was illegally occupying Li's property.
This is the basic compensation that should be obtained, or the minimum, it is a legal recovery of losses, and the other party has already agreed to settle, and there is no reason to bite Ren Mou guilty.
The local ** and village groups coordinated with many parties to get the reconciliation result, and suddenly repented and made false accusations, Li Mouku was very problematic, and he pretended to be a victim.
Ren finally drove the car away after a lot of hardships, but no one paid attention to the loss for such a long time, he originally planned to solve it according to the law, but Li Mouku agreed to compensate privately, and the matter was forgotten.
According to the consistent way of resolving civil disputes, there is nothing wrong with Ren's approach, and it is a reasonable operation, and the sentence of extortion is a debatable result.
Extortion should not be established.
Ren's various behaviors and running around are mainly because his personal losses are not compensated, which is actually caused by the inefficiency of the relevant departments in handling the problem, and he is ready to report the situation to the higher departments.
At this time, Li Mouku wanted to stop Ren from continuing to petition, and Ren proposed the amount of compensation as a way to recover his losses, and the two parties agreed to reach a negotiated settlement, which was completely free of intimidation and threats.
The main point of entanglement in this case is why Ren was taken away after the incident, according to Li Mouku's perspective, if Ren wants to achieve extortion, there must be a handle.
Li Mouku has to have a handle in Ren's hands, and Ren takes the opportunity to ask for money to form blackmail, but Ren Mou finds the relevant departments to mediate according to the law, how can it be regarded as a handle?
The content of the extortion arose because Li Mouku was unwilling to pay compensation, and regretted it after giving Ren a basic compensation of 30,000 yuan, so he filed a lawsuit in the court.
Article 274 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates:
Where public or private property is extorted, where the amount is relatively large or there are multiple extortions, a sentence of up to three years imprisonment, short-term detention or controlled release is to be given, and/or a fine.
According to normal standards, there was no cause of illegal infringement in Ren's claim process, and he took formal channels, including the process of returning the trailer and reporting the problem to the higher authorities.
Ren did not choose an extreme way or illegal way, this is the right of a citizen to receive compensation and be supported by the relevant departments for compensation, which reflects the real situation.
Li Moupei and his father Li Mouku did illegally impound Ren's vehicle, and there was no fabrication of facts to intimidate, so it was normal for Ren to petition and report, and it was normal for ** to intervene.
If the fact of detaining the car does not exist, then there is no need to ignore Ren doing these things, Li Mouku has no fear at all, and it is impossible to be forced to pay Ren because of this.
At the time of the confrontation between the two parties, the amount of the claim was stated, and the money was made to Ren by Li Mouku on his own initiative, which should not be determined to be forced in nature.
The status and role of the object of the claim.
* It is mainly determined that Li Moupei is the main responsible person in this case, especially the acts such as the detention of the car, which were done by Li Moupei, and Li Mouku should not be the target of Ren's recovery.
But in fact, it was Li Mouku who had not been allowed to let the car go in the process, and he had the highest right to speak, including the follow-up town ** people, the police station adjustment, and everyone else was a soldier who acted according to orders.
All kinds of decisions were made by Li Mouku, which is enough to prove the dominance of the subject in this case, in fact, he is making decisions, so there is nothing wrong with him on the issue of compensation.
The audio recordings and other materials provided by Ren clearly identified the de facto leader, and it can be seen who is the real mastermind behind this case, and it is really unreasonable to convict with the object of recovery.
Li Mouku did not take the initiative to detain the car, because he did not need to do it himself, and he could bear the main responsibility at the level of decision-making and communication.
In fact, it played a major role, and ** should recognize this real problem, and affirm that Ren's recovery, the plot of extortion does not exist at all.
Li Mouku should be compensated for the losses caused by the detention of the car, and the specific amount is also within a reasonable range, and Ren did not file an illegal infringement.
Li Mouku is in fact responsible, so it is also necessary to compensate Ren, and the only nitpicky thing is that Ren should go to the court to sue Li Mouku for compensation.