HC emergency rescue network news ;
On the evening of May 14, 2018, the Zhejiang court open network court notice issued the case number (2018), the case of the end of the case of the end of the Zhejiang Province, the appellant was Mo Huanjing, the case will be heard at 9 am on May 17.
The opening court notice shows that the case underwriting department is a court and will be heard in the Second Court of the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province.
On June 22, 2017, a fire broke out in Room 1802, Unit 1, Building 2, Blue Qianjiang, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou. After receiving the fire alarm, Hangzhou Public Security Fire Bureau rushed to the scene of the fire to carry out the rescue. Lin Shengbin’s wife and three young children The child was killed.
At 9:30 on February 9, 2018, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court publicly pronounced the defendant Mo Huanjing's arson and theft in the second court. He sentenced the defendant Mo Huanjing to death for arson and deprived of political rights for life; Theft was sentenced to five years in prison and a fine of RMB 10,000. The two crimes were combined and the death penalty was decided. The political rights were deprived for life and the fine was RMB 10,000. In the case, the court held that "Mo Huanjing did not arbitrarily deliberately" was not established.
The situation statement published by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court mentioned that there was no open fire after Mo Huanjing's book was ordered, and there was no deliberate igniting of the sofa, the curtain's defense and the defender's suggestion that Mo Huanjing had no intention of arson.
According to the investigation by the court, Mo Huanjing searched for “fire compensation at home†by mobile phone, “identification of fire causeâ€, “sleeping in the middle of the night, no fire at homeâ€, “the sofa suddenly caught fireâ€, “Is it going to go to jail?†“The curtains at home suddenly caught fire†Information such as "easy to find the cause of the fire start" reflects its obvious arson premeditated.
Mo Huanjing was confessed after returning to the case. The ignition time was about 4:55. He used a lighter to order the book twice. After the first unlit jacket, he lit the inside page of the book and saw that the book would burn Mars. The book was thrown on the fabric sofa, and the sofa and curtains were quickly ignited. Therefore, Mo Huanjing searched for information related to arson several times before the incident, lit the book at the time of the incident, and threw the ignited book on the flammable material, causing a fire, and deliberately set fire to the defender. The deliberate opinion of Huan Jing’s arson-free intention is inconsistent with the facts ascertained and will not be adopted.
The first-instance judgment found that the defendant Mo Huanjing deliberately used a lighter to ignite flammable materials in a high-rise residence, causing four people to die and major property losses. His behavior has constituted an arson; Mo Huanjing is still engaged in the work of a live-in caregiver. The theft of employers’ property for many times is huge, and its actions have constituted theft. The public prosecutor accused Mo Huanjing of the crime. Mo Huanjing is guilty of two crimes and should be punished according to law.
In the early hours of the morning, Mo Huanjing deliberately set fire to high-rise residential buildings, resulting in four deaths and major property losses. The criminal motives were despicable and the criminal consequences were extremely serious. The public security was seriously endangered and the society was extremely harmful. The law should be severely punished. Although Mo Huanjing was able to confess the crime of arson after he was brought to justice, it was not enough to punish him. After Mo Huanjing returned to the case, he took the initiative to account for the theft crimes that the public security organs had not yet mastered. He surrendered himself and could punish him for the crime of theft.
Editor in charge: Gao Hong
Zhejiang Lamon Technology Inc. , https://www.babychaires.com