Internet pushing hands Qin case sentence

Absrtact: According to Beijing Chaoyang Court Micro Bo According to the Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court, the official micro-Bo Chaoyang Court news, the network pushing hands Qin Zhihui (net name: Qin) suspected of defamation, a case of provocation, public sentencing this morning. Defendant Qin Zhihui guilty of libel and sentenced

Figure "Beijing Chaoyang Court" Weibo

According to Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court, "Beijing Chaoyang Court" news, the network pushing hands Qin Zhihui (net name: Qin) suspected of defamation, the case of a provocation, public sentencing this morning. The defendant, Qin Zhihui, sentenced to two years ' imprisonment for defamation, sentenced to six months ' imprisonment, and three years ' imprisonment for the offence of provocation. In view of the fact that the Qin Zhihui can truthfully confess the crimes, the guilty confession is a better attitude, the court will be punished according to law for the crime of libel, provocation and trouble-making.

After the court found, Qin Zhihui knowingly luo (male, China Strategic Culture Promotion Association, Deputy President and Secretary-General) Department of Military personnel, on February 25, 2013, using the nickname "Eastern Qin Fire Fire" Sina Weibo account (UID number: 3198027857) fabricated "Brother Luo Loo in Germany, Siemens" The fact that there is no reason to question the "exchange of interests" between the people of Romania and his family and spread on the information network. This information was forwarded more than 2,500 time, causing a large number of netizens to the negative evaluation of the Luo aid.

Qin Zhihui knowingly "Yang Lan (female, Sunshine Media Group Holdings Limited Company chairman) to the Hope Project false donation" is a fabricated fact, on July 15, 2013, using the nickname "Huai Qin Fire Fire" Sina Weibo account (UID number: 3621506850) spread on the information network. This information was forwarded more than 700 time, causing a large number of netizens to the negative evaluation of Yang LAN.

The facts mentioned above shall be proved by the evidence of the victim's report, the witness testimony, the relevant documentary documents and the defendant's statement.

In response to the fact, the defender read out in court and produced the relevant documentary evidence to prove that the case was not published by the defendant Qin Zhihui, and the information involved in the false donations of Yang Lan was previously formed on the Internet.

The above evidence, after the trial testimony, quality certificate, the Court certification is as follows:

1, the defendant Qin Zhihui about its use of "Huai-Qin Fire" micro-blog account and published in Beijing this micro-blog for the statement of the Huaxun World Company, Sina issued by the documentary evidence and witness Liu testimony supporting, and micro-blog account registration does not require me to register personally operation, Therefore, micro-blog account registration in Guangdong Province Zhongshan does not affect the identification of the facts of the case;

2, about the false contributions of Yang Lan, although the information on the Internet has been circulated, but in Yang Lan and the Chinese Youth Development Foundation to clarify the situation, the accused Qin Zhihui still be disseminated, can be found that they know that the fabricated facts and spread. Therefore, the Court shall not adopt the relevant opinions of the Defender and confirm the evidence read and produced by the public prosecution organ.

Qin Zhihui on November 27, 2012, using the nickname "Huang Qin Fire Fire" Sina Weibo account (UID number: 2930912765) fabricated "Zhang (women, the Chinese Federation of Disabled Persons) with German nationality" and spread, after the Netizen reported, Sina company to determine the above information for false information, Zhang also issued a clarification statement on November 28, 2012 via Weibo. The accused Qin Zhihui again on December 31, 2012 using "Yan Huang Qin Fire" Sina Weibo account again published about the above information, in a short time to be forwarded more than 20 times, causing netizens to Zhang negative evaluation.

In response to the fact, the defender read to the court and presented the relevant documentary evidence to prove that the false information about Zhang's German nationality had been formed on the internet before the Qin Zhihui release of the article.

The above evidence, by the trial testimony, quality certificate, the Court certification is as follows: on whether the accused Qin Zhihui fabricated facts slander Zhang, Sina issued the documentary evidence and Qin Zhihui statement, Qin Zhihui on November 27, 2012, published Zhang with the German nationality of information, after the report has been the Sina company to determine the false information, After Zhang issued a statement on November 28, 2012 clarifying the issue of nationality, Qin Zhihui issued the false information again on December 31, 2012. The above evidence is sufficient to identify Qin Zhihui fabricating facts to slander Zhang. Therefore, the Court shall not adopt the relevant opinions of the Defender and confirm the evidence read and produced by the public prosecution organ.

After the court found, July 23, 2011, Yong-Wen railway in Zhejiang province Wenzhou related sections of the road occurred particularly serious railway traffic accidents (ie, 7 23 Yong-wen train accident). In the aftermath of the incident, the accused Qin Zhihui to use hot spots to promote self speculation, improve network attention, on August 20, 2011, using the nickname "China Qin Fire Fire _f92" Sina Weibo account (UID number: 1746609413) to fabricate and disseminate false information, Said the original Ministry of Railways to the 7 23 Yong-Wen Railway train accident in the loss of foreign visitors to pay 30 million euros high compensation.

The microblogging was forwarded 11,000 times, comments more than 3,300 time, triggering a large number of netizens questioned the credibility of State organs, the original Ministry of Railways was forced to refute the night. The Qin Zhihui of the defendant's behavior has caused a bad effect to the accident rehabilitation work.

The facts mentioned above shall be proved by the relevant documentary evidence, the record of investigation and the defendant's statement. In response to that fact, the defender read and presented the relevant documentary evidence to prove that the same information had been posted on the internet before the Qin Zhihui was released.

The above evidence, after the trial testimony, quality certificate, the hospital certification is as follows:

1, about the information involved in the micro-Bo Qin Zhihui issued for the defendant, Sina Company issued a documentary evidence to prove that the micro-blog account with Qin Zhihui related to the objective information, sufficient to prove that the micro-blog account by the Qin Zhihui, Qin Zhihui also repeatedly confessed to use the Micro-blog account information, evidence of mutual confirmation, enough to identify;

2, about the micro-Bo information involved in the accused Qin Zhihui fabricated, the former Ministry of Railways had issued a statement of compensation criteria before Qin Zhihui issued the information, Qin Zhihui about its assertion that the information was fabricated, and that the alleged fabrication process had been corroborated by the prosecution's objective evidence of "20 million euros for foreign passengers". To prove the authenticity of its confession;

3. Whether any other person has published the same information before the defendant Qin Zhihui the information, the defender presented the "Lucifer" micro Blog, the micro-blog shows the release time earlier than Qin Zhihui, but the public prosecution produced by Sina Company and Beijing Bean Network Technology Co., Ltd. issued by the documentary evidence, can prove "Lucifer" The micro-blogging system was released after the release of Qin Zhihui Weibo. Therefore, the Court shall not adopt the relevant opinions of the Defender and confirm the evidence read and produced by the public prosecution organ.

As to the defendant, the accused Qin Zhihui subjectively did not knowingly make false information, and did not objectively implement the defense opinion of fabricating or fabricating false information. After investigation, the defendant Qin Zhihui on the Information network published in the contents of the micro-blog or out of Nothing, for Qin Zhihui himself to fabricate, fabricate, or false information involved in the content has a certain source, but the Qin Zhihui has been substantially tampered with the original way to publish; or false information has been circulated in the information network, but the victims have been involved in clarification, Qin Zhihui still add content to be disseminated on the information network.

As a network practitioner, Qin Zhihui has not only failed to fulfill the basic verification obligation, but has always fabricated and fabricated false facts, which is enough to prove its subjective knowledge of the falsity of the information involved. Qin Zhihui Objectively also carried out the act of fabricating and fabricating false information, which has been demonstrated separately in fact and evidence. Therefore, the defence opinion court does not accept.

As to the fact that the defendant's case of libel is not a public prosecution case, some of the victims did not ask the judicial organs to be prosecuted, and the public prosecution organs applied the indictment procedure to hold the defendants Qin Zhihui the legal basis for the criminal responsibility of defamation. After investigation, according to the No. 246 article of the criminal law of the People's Republic of China, defamation of others, serious circumstances, constitute defamation, serious harm to social order and national interests, should be applied to the public prosecution procedure.

According to the provisions of article II and Fourth of the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's procuratorate on several issues concerning the application of law to the use of information networks in criminal cases such as defamation, the same libel information has been forwarded for more than 500 times, and shall be deemed to be "serious in circumstances" as , the use of information network to slander other people's behavior in a year has not been dealt with, libel information has been the actual number of forwarding cumulative calculation constitutes a crime, should be punished according to law. At the same time, the judicial interpretation of the third provision, with defamation of many people, causing adverse social impact, etc., should be identified as the above-mentioned provisions of the criminal law "seriously endanger the social order and national interests."

In this case, Qin Zhihui used the information network, slander Yang Lan and other citizens, of which three of the libel information has been forwarded to more than 500 times, should be identified as "serious circumstances"; The number of libel messages on Zhang has not reached 500 times, but according to the provisions of article Fourth of the judicial interpretation, Qin Zhihui in one year, respectively, to slander Yang Lan and other people, the defamation information should be forwarded to the cumulative count.

Accordingly, Qin Zhihui slander Yang Lan and other people's behavior constitutes libel, and is defamation many people and caused the bad social influence, should apply the indictment procedure to investigate the criminal law of libel Qin Zhihui. Therefore, the defence opinion court does not accept.

On the defendant Qin Zhihui issued the original railway in 7 23 Yong-Wen Railway train accident in the sky-high price compensation for foreign passengers of the false information is not enough to cause serious public order confusion, the prosecution organs accused of the act constitutes a cause for trouble crime based on the lack of defense opinions.

After investigation, 7 23 Yong-Wen Railway train accident is a special major rail traffic accident, people concerned, Qin Zhihui in the aftermath of the incident, fabricated government agencies to compensate for the information of foreign passengers and spread on the network, booing, the false information was forwarded 11 000 times, comments more than 3,300, not only caused the chaos of cyberspace , but also in the real society caused by the unknown truth of the masses of discontent, disrupted the rehabilitation of government agencies.

The act of Qin Zhihui can be regarded as a serious disorder of public order, which accords with the constitutive elements of the crime of causing trouble. Therefore, the defence opinion court does not accept.

As to the defendants ' Qin Zhihui, the subjective intention and objective behavior of the accused were not different, and the punishment of libel and trouble-making was carried out, which would make the defendant's two times guilty of the same act. After investigation, the crime of libel and trouble crime is different, the object of libel infringement is the citizen's personality and reputation, the object of the crime of causing trouble is the social order, and the behavior characteristics of the two crimes are different.

In this case, Qin Zhihui fabricated damage to Yang Lan and other civic personality, reputation of the facts, spread on the information network, its behavior in line with the criminal constitution of libel, and Qin Zhihui in 7 23 Yong-Wen line after the accident, fabricate the government agency to compensate the false information of foreign passengers in the information network spread, booing and disorderly, caused the social public order the serious confusion, its behavior conforms to the crime which the trouble-causing crime constitutes.

According to the facts of different nature, the public prosecution organs are identified as libel, the crime of causing trouble, and the court supports it qualitatively and accurately. Therefore, the defence opinion court does not accept.

The court found that the defendant Qin Zhihui disregard the laws of the state, fabricate facts on the information network, slander others, serious circumstances, and slander many people, causing adverse social effects, its behavior has constituted a libel, the accused Qin Zhihui in the information network during the major emergencies, to fabricate and disseminate false information about the adverse effects on the state organs, The public order is serious and disorderly, and its behavior has constituted the crime of causing trouble, and the law should be punished and implemented punishment.

The people's Procuratorate of Chaoyang district of Beijing accuses the accused of Qin Zhihui the crime of libel and causing trouble, and the evidence is true and sufficient. The defendant Qin Zhihui in a longer period of time in the information network to wantonly commit illegal and criminal acts, according to the facts, nature, circumstances and social harm to the crime of libel and trouble-making, this should be punished as appropriate. However, in view of the fact that the accused Qin Zhihui the crime and confessed the guilty confession, the court has given a lighter punishment to the crime of libel and trouble-making. The defender suggested that the defendant Qin Zhihui the plea of lighter punishment and the Court adopted it.

The Court in accordance with the criminal law of the People's Republic of China No. 246, No. 293 article (iv), article 67th, article 61st, 69th article I and the Supreme Peoples Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the use of information network to carry out defamation and other criminal cases of the application of the law several issues of the interpretation of For the provisions of articles I, II, III, fourth and fifth, the judgment is as follows:

The defendant, Qin Zhihui, sentenced to two years ' imprisonment for defamation, sentenced to six months ' imprisonment and a sentence of three years ' imprisonment, calculated from the date of execution of the sentence. In the custody of the sentence before the execution of the judgment, the day of detention shall be commuted to the day of imprisonment, from August 19, 2013 to August 18, 2016.

The defendant, Qin Zhihui, said no appeal.