Upon trial, it was found:

1. On the night of July 8, 2013, the defendants Chen, Liu, and Chu conspired in advance to snatch a gold necklace in the room of the Renhe Hotel at Chicheng Street, Tiantai County. After coming to an agreement, the three took a moped driven by Chu to Shiliang Bay Park near the bridge on Jiuchang Road, Chicheng Street, Tiantai County. When the victim, Ding, got on an electric bike, Chen snatched a gold necklace from around Ding's neck. After succeeding, they fled the scene on Chu's moped. Subsequently, Chu and Liu sold the stolen gold necklace to Seagull Goldsmiths for 3,600 yuan. The appraisal determined that the stolen gold necklace was valued at 5,450 yuan. The gold from the necklace has been returned to the victim after being remelted.

2. In the afternoon of July 9, 2013, defendants Chen and Liu agreed to snatch another gold necklace. Liu drove the moped carrying Chen to a road outside Tiantai Vocational and Technical Secondary School on Tiantaishan Middle Road in Tiantai County, approached Yang, who was riding an electric bike, and Chen snatched the gold necklace from around Yang’s neck. The appraisal determined that the stolen gold necklace was valued at 4,860 yuan, and the necklace has been returned to the victim. After the incident, defendant Chu assisted the police in capturing one suspect.

In summary, defendants Chen and Liu committed two instances of snatching, gaining property valued at a total of 10,310 yuan. Defendant Chu participated in one instance, gaining property valued at 5,450 yuan. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Chen, Liu, and Chu during the court hearing. Their confessions are consistent with the statements of the victims, Ding and Yang, and the testimony of witness Ying. The evidence includes the Appraisal Conclusion Document, Identification Record, Scene Investigation Record, Appraisal Opinion, Criminal Judgment, Video Material, Seizure and Return Lists, Incident-related Mobile Inventory, Proof, Tiantai Seagull Goldsmiths Register, Household Registration Certificate, Account of Arrest, and Description of Previous Offenses, all of which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain city charges: On April 24, 2014, at around 3 am, the defendant Liu hired the defendants Luo and Wang to drive a modified blue unlicensed tanker from a tannery in a certain village of a certain city to transport away 20 tons of tannery wastewater. Later, Luo and Wang were preparing to dump the tannery wastewater into the river canal beside the South Road of the National Grain Reserve Depot on the Anxin Line of the city when they were caught red-handed by the law enforcement officers of the city's Environmental Protection Bureau. According to the testing conducted by the Environmental Monitoring Station of the city on the tannery wastewater in the tanker, the total chromium concentration of the wastewater was 0.692mg/L, and the chemical oxygen demand concentration was 7.67×10^3mg/L, classifying it as a toxic substance. Subsequently, the Environmental Protection Department of Hebei Province replied with recognition of this monitoring data. The prosecution read aloud and presented the following evidence in support of the above charges before the court: 1. Physical evidence: one Dongfeng brand tanker; 2. Documentary evidence, including a case registration form, the decision to file the case, photos of the tools used in the crime, the document transferring the suspected environmental crime case, an investigation report from the Environmental Protection Bureau of a certain city on the illegal discharge of tannery wastewater incident beside the river canal on the National Grain Reserve Depot Road of the Anxin Line in a certain city, monitoring reports, a reply from the Environmental Protection Department of Hebei Province, investigation notes, the criminal judgment of the People's Court of a certain city in Hebei Province, certification from the Environmental Protection Bureau of a certain city, case details, and household registration certificates. Witness testimonies; 4. Confessions from the defendants Liu, Luo, and Wang. 5. Inspection and examination records, including the on-site inspection records from the Environmental Protection Bureau of a certain city.


The People's Procuratorate of Jiangbei District in a certain city charged that around 20:00 on a certain day in early December 2014, defendant Ni allowed Li to use the drug methamphetamine in his home at 1 Dayou, Gejia Village, Zhuangqiao Street, within this district. Around 22:00 on a day more than ten days later, defendant Ni again allowed Li to use methamphetamine at the same location. Around 20:00 on January 18, 2015, defendant Ni once more allowed Li to use methamphetamine at the same location. Around 20:00 on a day in late November 2014, defendant Zhao allowed Jing to use methamphetamine in a room located at 38 Beishi Street, Hongtang Street, within this district, where he lived. On the afternoon and evening of January 22, 2015, defendant Zhao again allowed Jing to use methamphetamine at the same location. On January 23, 2015, defendants Ni and Zhao were arrested by the police for drug use. After being brought to justice, the two confessed to the criminal acts of allowing others to use drugs, facts which the public security organs had not yet uncovered. These facts, to which defendants Ni and Zhao confessed without objection in court, are supported by evidence submitted by the prosecution. This evidence, which was cross-examined and verified in court, includes documentary evidence such as administrative penalty decisions, community drug treatment decisions, mandatory isolation drug treatment decisions, identification documents, the process of arrest, and case-solving records. The testimonies of witnesses Wang, Jing, and Li, the confessions of defendants Ni and Zhao, and the expert opinion on-site test report further corroborate these facts, which are sufficient to establish guilt.


The prosecution alleges that on March 23, 2013, at 21:30, at the intersection under the Happy Disco building in Qian'an City, defendant Zhang got into a verbal altercation with Yang Yi, Lu, and Yang Jia over a car reversing issue. After defendant Ceng arrived at the scene, he, along with defendant Zhang, injured Yang Jia's nasal bone and damaged the eardrums of Lu and Yang Yi (on April 1, 2013, Yang Jia's injury was assessed as minor injury). On April 16, 2014, the injuries of the victim Yang Jia were evaluated as minor injury of the second degree by the Qian'an City Public Security Bureau forensic examination; on April 12, 2013, the injuries of victims Lu and Yang Yi were respectively evaluated as minor injuries by the Qian'an City Public Security Bureau forensic examination; on October 9, 2014, Yang Jia's injuries were re-evaluated as minor injury of the second degree by the Tianjin Jinshi Judicial Appraisal Center; on October 12 and 14, 2014, the injuries of victims Lu and Yang Yi were re-evaluated as slight injuries by the Tianjin Jinshi Judicial Appraisal Center. The prosecution has presented corresponding evidence to the court regarding the alleged facts.


After trial, it was found that in July 2019, during the investigation of a fraud case involving Luo (handled in a separate case) and others, the Fengxian Branch of Shanghai Public Security Bureau discovered that Luo illegally obtained personal information from the defendant Xue for fraudulent activities. Defendants Zhang, Sun, and Tao also illegally obtained personal information from defendant Xue. The specific facts are as follows:

1. From May 2018 to July 2019, defendant Xue, in order to seek illegal gains, collected personal information by publishing links on the internet. After an appraisal of the mobile phone and computer seized from defendant Xue, it was found that he obtained over 240,000 records conforming to mobile phone number rules using the aforementioned method.

2. From April 2018 to June 2019, defendant Zhang, in order to seek illegal gains, illegally obtained personal information through WeChat from Xue and others. After an appraisal of the mobile phone seized from defendant Zhang, it was found that he obtained 35,748 records conforming to mobile phone number rules using the aforementioned method.

3. From November 2018 to July 2019, defendant Sun, in order to seek illegal gains, illegally obtained personal information through WeChat from defendant Xue. After an appraisal of the mobile phone seized from defendant Sun, it was found that he obtained 10,217 records conforming to mobile phone number rules using the aforementioned method.

4. From April 2018 to July 2019, defendant Tao, in order to seek illegal gains, illegally obtained over 5,000 records of personal information from defendant Xue at unit prices of 3 yuan, 5 yuan, and 10 yuan. On September 26, 2019, defendant Sun voluntarily surrendered to the authorities and truthfully confessed his crime.

The above facts were not disputed by the four defendants during the trial, and were supported by the testimony of the witness Luo, WeChat chat and transfer details, the judicial appraisal report issued by Shanghai Honglian Network Technology Co., Ltd. computer forensic center, the search warrant, search records, seizure decision, seizure records, seizure list, remittance receipts, explanatory notes, working conditions, and circumstances of the case issued and produced by the public security organs, which are sufficient to confirm the facts.


Upon trial, it was found that at around 11 p.m. on January 28, 2018, at the Prince and Princess Adventure KTV in a certain county, the defendants Cui, Pei, and Teng had a verbal altercation with staff members Gao and Zeng over billing issues. After negotiations between the parties, defendant Pei requested Gao and Zeng to escort them outside. Outside, defendants Pei and Teng physically assaulted Gao by punching and kicking him. When Zeng tried to intervene, defendants Cui and Pei also attacked Zeng. According to forensic evaluation, Zeng suffered fractures in both nasal bones classified as minor injuries of the second degree, and head trauma with neurological symptoms classified as slight injuries. On March 19, 2018, defendants Cui and Teng surrendered to the public security authorities and truthfully confessed to the aforementioned facts. The three defendants have since compensated the victims for their losses and obtained their understanding. The above facts are corroborated by the statements of the victims Zeng and Gao, surveillance video (on CD), forensic evaluation reports, and the confessions of the three defendants. The circumstances of surrender, compensation, and obtaining understanding are evidenced by the case closure report, interrogation records, receipts, and letters of understanding.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in Wenzhou City charged that between February 5 and March 10, 2014, defendants You and Cheng drove a Hyundai sedan with the license plate number C××××× on main roads such as Renmin Road and Jiangbin Road in a certain district. They used "pseudo base station" equipment installed in the car to illegally occupy the public frequency of China Mobile Communications Company (with a transmission frequency of 945.0MHz and a transmission power of 15.03W) to send advertisement SMS messages about the installation of surveillance and satellite TV to nearby people. During this period, the two defendants also helped others send recruitment and Taobao advertisement SMS messages in a similar manner in a certain district and county. Upon inspection of the aforementioned "pseudo base station" equipment, it was found that You and Cheng successfully sent a total of 277,347 IMSI numbers between February 5 and March 10, 2014. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the two defendants during the court trial and are corroborated by evidence including photos of the crime tools, population information, seizure list, explanations, circumstances of the case, site search records, electronic evidence inspection report, and test reports, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The prosecution alleges that defendant Cui conspired with defendant Wang and co-defendant Wu (separately prosecuted) to create fake fraudulent links to deceive victims into clicking and paying, with Wang responsible for finding an app to withdraw the money, which would then be split equally among the three. Defendant You and defendant Zhang learned about the above fraudulent method online. On June 26, 2020, You added victim Xu as a QQ friend. The next day, You falsely claimed that the victim could earn money by doing Taobao tasks and tricked the victim into downloading the fake "Part-time Taobao" app. Subsequently, defendant You had defendant Zhang find a fraudulent link, and Zhang contacted defendant Cui via QQ. Cui created a fake fraudulent link according to the amount provided by Zhang. You sent the link to victim Xu and falsely claimed that clicking the link would not result in actual payment but would complete a task to earn a commission. The victim Xu followed You's instructions and paid RMB 15,000. Upon realizing the payment, the victim contacted You for inquiry. You claimed it was a backend error and said they would help connect to return the money, then promptly blocked the victim on QQ and lost contact. The money was transferred to a withdrawal channel, the "Sihai Yucang" app, found by Wang in advance. After withdrawal operations, it entered an Alipay account controlled by Cui and was illegally appropriated by the defendants. Defendant You and defendant Zhang each received RMB 4,125 of the stolen money, while defendant Cui, defendant Wang, and co-defendant Wu each received RMB 2,250. After the crime was discovered, the four defendants jointly compensated the victim's financial losses. To substantiate the above allegations, the prosecution presented the victim's statement, witness testimonies, QQ chat records, Alipay transaction records, relevant documents, co-defendant confessions, and confessions from the four defendants as evidence in court.


The prosecution charges that on October 21, 2018, the victim, Xu, through an introduction by another person, borrowed 50,000 RMB from defendants Zhou, Luan, and Sun in a certain community in a district of this city. The agreed loan term was 10 days with a daily interest of 2,000 RMB. Defendants Zhou, Luan, and Sun, on the grounds of deducting interest and a deposit in advance, falsely increased the debt by 40,000 RMB. They also verbally informed the victim of "trap clauses" such as "interest repayment not exceeding 12 noon" to easily cause misunderstandings or breach of contract by the victim, Xu. They induced Xu to write an IOU for 90,000 RMB and created a bank transaction record of 90,000 RMB. During the loan period, the victim, Xu, paid a total of 20,000 RMB in daily interest. During this time, defendants Zhou, Luan, and Sun, before the loan was due, summoned the victim Xu to an office in a district of this city, accusing Xu of breaching the contract on the grounds of "interest repayment exceeding 12 noon," and demanded that Xu repay 87,000 RMB upon maturity to settle the account. On November 1, 2018, the victim Xu, by withdrawing cash via a bank card, paid 87,000 RMB to defendants Zhou, Luan, and Sun in front of the Taizhou Pharmaceutical High-tech Zone branch of the Bank of Communications. Through the above method, defendants Zhou, Luan, and Sun defrauded the victim Xu of 57,000 RMB, and the proceeds were divided equally among the three and spent. After being apprehended, defendants Zhou, Luan, and Sun truthfully confessed their criminal acts, and the defendant Sun returned part of the illegal gains. To prove the above charges, the prosecution read out and presented evidence in court, including bank card transaction details, testimonies from witnesses including Liu, statements from the victim Xu, and the confessions and defenses of the defendants Zhou, Luan, and Sun.


After examination, it was found: On the afternoon of December 1, 2014, defendant Zhong had a dispute with others over trivial matters. Subsequently, Zhong gathered defendant Li at a bridge near an internet cafe in a certain village, town, district, and city, where they used knives to injure victim Wang on the head and right hip, and victim Xu on the head and left elbow. According to the assessment, the injuries sustained by victim Wang were classified as minor injuries of the first degree, while victim Xu's injuries were classified as slight. On the same afternoon, Zhong and Li were apprehended by the police near a restaurant in the same village, town, district, and city. During the trial at this court, the relatives of defendants Zhong and Li reached a reconciliation agreement with victims Wang and Xu, compensating them with a total of 24,000 yuan for their economic losses, and both victims expressed understanding regarding the actions of the defendants. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Zhong and Li during the court hearing. Additionally, there are testimonies from victims Wang and Xu, witnesses Luo, Linghu A, Linghu B, Yong, among others, as well as identification records made by Linghu A and Xu, on-site inspection records and photos, outpatient and inpatient medical records, preliminary opinions on the degree of injury, forensic examination opinions on the degree of human injury, reconciliation agreement, receipts, public security administrative penalty decisions, apprehension process, explanations, investigation reports, and household registration evidence of the defendants, which sufficiently confirm these facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district of Suzhou City charges that on August 1, 2013, at approximately 22:00, the defendants Qiu and Zou, after premeditation, went to the building of the victim Yang's futures company in a certain town of a district in Suzhou City. They used a crowbar to smash the car window and destroyed the windows of the Land Rover Freelander 2 vehicle with the license plate "Zhe E×××××" parked by the victim Yang at that location. According to the appraisal, the loss amounted to 15,230 RMB. On December 12, 2013, defendants Qiu and Zou turned themselves in to the Qidu Police Station of the Public Security Bureau of a certain district of Suzhou City and truthfully confessed their criminal acts. After the incident, defendants Qiu and Zou compensated the victim Yang for the economic loss and obtained understanding.

To substantiate the aforementioned charges, the public prosecution agency submitted relevant evidence and thereby contended that: defendants Qiu and Zou intentionally destroyed another person's property together, and the amount was considerable. Their conduct violated the provisions of Article x of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, and they should be held criminally responsible for x crime. In the joint crime, defendants Qiu and Zou both played major roles and are thus principal offenders. After committing the crime, defendants Qiu and Zou both voluntarily surrendered and truthfully confessed their crimes, constituting voluntary confessions, which can warrant a lighter or mitigated punishment. A sentence in accordance with the law is requested.

The above facts were not contested by defendants Qiu and Zou during the court proceedings, and there is sufficient evidence to establish these facts, including the victim Yang's statement record, witness testimonies from witnesses Gu and Xu, identification records, vehicle photographs, case handling process, price appraisal conclusion letter, settlement list, vehicle information, agreement, receipt, letter of understanding, population information, and other evidence.


According to the prosecution agency, one day in the first half of 2012, the defendants Shen and Ying, along with Li and Yan (both handled separately), colluded after prior planning in a residential house near Jinma Hotel on Haichang Street, Haining City. They used pre-prepared cheating tools such as remote-controlled dice and invisible contact lenses to cooperate and gamble, swindling the victim Chen Yi out of 40,000 yuan in cash. On December 25, 2013, and January 5, 2014, defendants Shen and Ying respectively turned themselves in to the Chang'an Police Station of the Haining Municipal Public Security Bureau and truthfully confessed the aforementioned criminal facts. During the trial of this case, defendant Shen returned 15,000 yuan, and defendant Ying returned 8,000 yuan. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Shen and Ying during the court trial, and were corroborated by the victim's statement, co-defendants' confessions, witness testimonies, identification records and photos, receipts, administrative penalty decisions, situation explanations, case arrival information, and household registration certificates, all of which are sufficient for conviction.


The prosecution alleges that in March 2016, on a certain day, defendant Tian rented an apartment on the 4th floor of Building 1, Yak Potang Community, Lotus Pond Town, in a certain district of a certain city, and planned with his wife, defendant Tang, to lure victims into the apartment for a massage, during which defendant Tian would take the opportunity to sneak into the room and steal their belongings. On March 15, 2016, at around 12:00 PM, the victim, Chen, was passing by a bus station near a certain town in a certain district of a certain city when defendant Tang approached and struck up a conversation. Under the pretense of providing massage services, she led Chen into the apartment and asked him to remove his clothes and place them on the bedside cabinet for the massage. Seizing the opportunity, defendant Tian used a spare key to enter the apartment and stole 2400 yuan in cash from Chen’s pants pocket. Subsequently, defendant Tang used the pretext of having to take a bath before


The People's Procuratorate of a certain city charged that on July 19, 2014, defendants Chen, Chen, along with Yang, Luo (all handled in separate cases), and others, in order to force others to join a pyramid scheme, lured the victim Li to a house on Shanglang Road in a certain city under the pretense of finding a job by Luo. The defendants Chen, Chen, and others then jointly guarded the victim, preventing him from leaving until he was rescued by police officers from the Public Security Bureau of the city on the 23rd of the same month. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants Chen, Chen during the court hearing, and were substantiated by the statement of the victim Li; the testimonies of witnesses Jiang, Nie, Qin, Tao, and another Li; identification records; on-site photos; relevant documentary evidence; and the account of the arrest by the public security authorities, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


After the trial, it was found that from October to November 2016, the defendants Zhu, Sun, Zhang, Huang, and Wang (handled in a separate case) went to various places in certain provinces under the arrangement of Zeng (handled in a separate case). They used other people’s resident identity cards to apply for credit cards, online banking USB keys, etc., at banks such as China Construction Bank and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. Zeng provided Zhu with the identity cards, SIM cards, funds, etc., needed for card issuance and paid wages. Zhu was responsible for distributing identity cards and SIM cards, driving card issuers, namely defendants Sun, Zhang, Huang, and others, to different places to apply for cards, scouting bank branches, mailing back the completed bank cards, tallying the number of cards issued, and paying salaries and daily expenses. Defendants Sun, Zhang, Huang, and Wang used other people’s identity documents to open bank accounts and fraudulently obtain credit cards and USB keys. They received a reward of 30 to 200 yuan per card. On November 9, 2016, defendants Zhu and others committed crimes in this city and were later captured by the public security organs. The police seized 12 fraudulently obtained credit cards, one Industrial and Commercial Bank of China USB key, one charger, seven other people’s identity cards, three China Unicom SIM cards, and other items. Upon investigation, defendants Zhu, Sun, Zhang, Huang, and Wang fraudulently obtained more than 198 credit cards using the aforementioned method. Defendant Sun directly handled the fraudulent obtaining of more than 66 credit cards, Zhang more than 62, and Huang more than 46. The above facts are confirmed by the testimony of witness Jin, enumerated by the prosecution in court, and cross-examined during the trial; search records, inspection records, seizure decision documents, seizure lists, identification records and photographs produced by the public security organs; electronic evidence examination work records, accounting information, WeChat payment details, evidence retrieval notifications, evidence retrieval lists, video surveillance, bank card transaction details, audit record details, personal information inquiries, STM transaction information, the arrest descriptions provided by police officers, explanations, household registration certificates, and the confessions of defendants Zhu, Sun, Zhang, and Huang regarding the aforementioned facts. This court confirms these facts.


The People's Procuratorate of Linchuan District in a certain city charged that around 1 PM on November 14, 2014, defendants Huang and Peng rode an electric bike to the vicinity of the Fuzhou Unicom Company on Linchuan Avenue in the city. Huang rode the bike to keep watch, while Peng stole a black OPAI electric bike belonging to the victim, Luo. Huang and Peng were caught by the police while they were washing the stolen electric bike at a car wash near the Fuhe Bridge in the city. An appraisal determined that the value of the stolen OPAI electric bike was 2,658 RMB. On the evening of May 3, 2013, around 6 PM, Huang rode to the parking area near the north gate of Rushui Park in the city and broke the left rear window of a Volkswagen Touareg with license plate Gan F××××× using a stone. He stole a women's PRADA handbag from the car, which contained the victim Liu's identity card, several bank cards, and more than 4,000 RMB in cash and other items. The evidence used by the public prosecution includes: physical evidence; documentary evidence; appraisal opinions; testimony from the witness Xin; statements from the victims Luo and Liu; and the confessions and defenses of defendants Huang and Peng.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain location charged that at approximately midnight on August 14, 2020, on the road opposite Jin Chao Moneybox KTV in Donggang City, Liaoning Province, defendants Tong and You had a dispute with the victim Zhao over who would escort a lady home. Subsequently, defendant Tong and Zhao engaged in a fistfight, during which both fell to the ground and were separated by accompanying friends. Afterward, the victim Zhao continued to insult Tong and hindered his departure, leading defendant You to kick and punch Zhao, knocking him to the ground. Then both defendants Tong and You further kicked Zhao, resulting in head injuries for Zhao. An assessment determined that Zhao sustained a grade one minor injury from an epidural hematoma; a grade one minor injury from cerebral contusion; a grade two minor injury from a skull fracture; and a minor scalp laceration. Defendants Tong and You were brought to the case upon being summoned by phone and truthfully confessed t


The People's Procuratorate of a certain area charged that in March 2016, defendants Li and Tang conspired in advance to steal a boat. At about 8:40 PM on March 24th, defendants Li and Tang went together to a village in a town in this city and stole a fiberglass boat (including a Huake brand HKGJ7.0 outboard motor) owned by Lu, which was moored in the river south of Yuejin Bridge. The items were valued at 4,050 RMB. After the crime, the public security authorities recovered the fiberglass boat and returned it to the victim, who has forgiven the defendants. After being apprehended, defendants Li and Tang truthfully confessed to the aforementioned theft. The defendants Li and Tang raised no objections to the above facts during the court hearing, and there is evidence to support these facts, including the victim Lu's report statement, on-site inspection records produced by the public security authorities, identification records and photos, a letter of forgiveness, a price certification opinion issued by the Yixing City Price Certification Center, and investigation materials recording the solving of the criminal case. The criminal judgments by the Wuxi Intermediate People's Court and this court respectively confirm that defendants Li and Tang were criminally punished for their offenses.


Upon examination, it was found that on May 30, 2015, at around 4:00 PM, defendants Wang and Lv had a verbal altercation with the victim, Chen, at the entrance of the "Sanxin Door Industry" renovation shop in the Daiwang Office of Macun District, Jiaozuo City, due to a dispute over customers. Subsequently, Wang and Lv assaulted the victim on the head and face, causing fractures to both sides of his nasal bone and a fracture to the left frontal process of his maxilla. According to the assessment, the injuries sustained by the victim Chen were classified as minor injuries of the second degree. After the incident, both parties reached a reconciliation through mediation by the public security authorities. The two defendants compensated the victim with 60,000 RMB, which has been fully paid, and the victim forgave the actions of the two defendants. The aforementioned facts were acknowledged by the defendants during the court hearing without objection and are corroborated by the victim Chen's statements, witness testimonies from individuals such as Zhang, the forensic assessment, mediation agreement, receipt, letter of forgiveness, household registration certificate, and the case dispatch documentation, providing sufficient evidence for confirmation.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district of a certain city charges that on the evening of April 22, 2015, the defendants Li and Chen illegally caught aquatic products using electric fishing methods during the closed fishing season in the Wujia Ferry waters of the Cao'e River in a certain district of a certain city (waters of a certain location). They were subsequently apprehended by the public security authorities. It was further found that the closed fishing season in the waters of a certain area of a certain city was from April 1 to May 31, 2015. The public security authorities seized from defendant Li three batteries, one transformer, one netted bamboo pole, and one plastic bucket. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Li and Chen during the trial. The evidence includes the confessions of defendants Li and Chen, identification records and photos, a list of seized items and photos, a water system map, the appraisal basis from the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishery, and Animal Husbandry Bureau of a certain district of a certain city, the 2015 closed fishing season announcement of a certain city, the apprehension process, and the household registration certificates of the two defendants, all of which are sufficient to establish the case.


The prosecution charges that on December 8, 2014, at approximately 17:40, the defendant Wang was driving a two-wheeled motorcycle with the license plate Lu D××××× along Renmin Road in the Shizhong District of a certain city, when he was about 20 meters east of the Yue Lou Village Bridge, and was involved in a traffic accident with the victim, Zhang. The victim Zhang was injured and fell to the ground. Subsequently, the defendant Zhou drove a small car with the license plate Lu D××××× to the accident scene and was also involved in a traffic accident with the fallen Zhang, causing further injuries to the victim Zhang. After the accidents, both defendants Wang and Zhou fled the scene. The victim Zhang died after unsuccessful emergency treatment in the hospital. According to the forensic evaluation, the cause of death was traumatic and hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries consistent with a road traffic accident. The traffic accident liability determination concluded that defendants Wang and Zhou bore full responsibility for the accident. After the incident, defendant Zhou voluntarily turned himself in to the police. Defendants Wang and Zhou each reached a compensation agreement with the victim's close family members, compensating them for their economic losses and obtaining their forgiveness. During the court hearing, the facts mentioned above were not disputed by defendants Wang and Zhou and were supported by the testimonies of ten witnesses, including Xue, Meng, and Lu, the traffic accident scene investigation record, scene diagrams, scene photographs, autopsy report, traffic accident determination, compensation agreements, letters of forgiveness, a description of the case resolution, household registration certificates, and related documentation, all of which are sufficient to establish the facts of the case.


The prosecution alleges that defendants Yin and Liu, at the invitation of Zhan A (already convicted), together with Zhou and Yang (both already convicted), under the pretense of collecting a debt, forcibly took the victim, Zhan, from Yunlin Story Restaurant on Sanyanqiao Road in Jianghan District of this city at around 22:00 on November 22, 2012. They confined the victim, Zhan, in a private room of a KTV in a certain township of a certain district in the city, unlawfully restricting his personal freedom, and used verbal threats and violent beatings to extort money from him. At around 3:00 on the 23rd of the same month, defendants Yin and Liu, along with their accomplices, took the victim, Zhan, to Duowen Community on Youyi Road in Jianghan District of this city to withdraw money, where the victim, Zhan, managed to escape and report to the police. According to forensic examination, the victim, Zhan, sustained multiple soft tissue injuries, which were classified as minor injuries. Defendants Yin and Liu voluntarily surrendered to the public security authorities and truthfully confessed their participation in the criminal acts on April 30 and June 15, 2014, respectively. During the trial, Liu's family voluntarily compensated the victim Zhan for economic losses in the amount of 1,500 RMB, and the victim Zhan expressed understanding towards defendant Liu. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants during the trial and are sufficiently substantiated by evidence such as screenshots of text messages, residency information forms, police apprehension and case-solving reports, criminal judgments, testimony from witness Xia, confessions from accomplices Zhan A, Zhou, and Yang, the statement and identification from the victim Zhan, and certain forensic identification reports.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charges that on the afternoon of April 16, 2015, defendants Li and Chen went to Room 203, Building 10, Maozhushan, China National Rice Research Institute, Fuyang District, Hangzhou City, where the victim Zhang rented an apartment. First, defendant Chen went upstairs to knock on the door to confirm that no one was home, then defendant Li used a ladder to climb through the window to break in, and then opened the door to let defendant Chen in. Together, defendants Li and Chen stole an assembled desktop computer worth 1,890 RMB. After the incident, the families of defendants Li and Chen compensated the victim for the full loss. The aforementioned facts are undisputed by defendants Li and Chen during the trial, and are supported by the victim Zhang's statement, the confessions and defenses of defendants Li and Chen, testimony from witness Wang, surveillance video, identification records and photos, on-site investigation records, site plans and photos, evidence receipt lists, second-hand transaction registration forms, price assessment reports, receipts, criminal judgment documents, certificates of release after serving sentences, criminal record evidence, case resolution details, and the household registration certificates of defendants Li and Chen, all of which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charges that in April 2016, the defendants Zhao, Yu, Liu, and Zhou, with the purpose of making a profit, established a gambling venue under the control of the four defendants for others to gamble. They organized a website with projects such as the "Jilin Kuaile" lottery as a platform for profit-making gambling. Defendants Yu and Zhao were responsible for funding, while defendant Zhou was responsible for creating the gambling website (named "Longteng International") and conducting technical maintenance. Defendants Yu and Zhao developed defendant Liu and others as their subordinates, and Yu, Zhao, and Liu each attracted other individuals to bet using dedicated accounts on the gambling website. Defendants Yu and Zhao paid Liu and other subordinates a betting rebate of three to five percent of the bet amounts accepted by the website. By the time the case was discovered, the "Longteng International" website had accepted a total of 57,565,398.00 yuan in bets, earning 2,548,434.30 yuan in profits. Of this, defendant Liu bet 1,697,756.00 yuan and received a profit share of more than 40,000 yuan. Aside from paying Zhou for the creation and maintenance of the website, defendants Yu and Zhao additionally paid Zhou 21,000 yuan for network technical support and maintenance services.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain area accused that starting from May 15, 2015, the defendant Li, together with Peng (handled in a separate case), set up a "Shark Ocean" game machine with gambling functions on the first floor at No. 139 Xinggong North Road, Kunyang Town, Pingyang County, for others to gamble. They hired the defendant Xu to be responsible for bookkeeping and providing token exchange services and other daily management in the store, and paid Xu’s salary based on a basic wage plus commission. By June 17 of the same year, when seized by the public security agency, Li, Xu, and others had profited over 10,000 RMB using the gambling machine. According to the appraisal, the "Shark Ocean" game machine set (with 8 independent operation stations, one of which is damaged), each basic unit can independently conduct gambling games and has gambling functions. After the incident, defendant Li turned himself in at the Pingyang County Public Security Bureau on June 18, 2015, and truthfully confessed his crime. During the trial at this court, defendant Li returned 10,000 RMB, the joint illegal proceeds. The above facts were not disputed by defendants Li and Xu during the court trial, and were supported by their previous confessions, the statements of the co-defendant Peng, testimonies from witnesses Xu, Yang A, Lin, Chen, Yang B, Jin, Ye, and more evidence such as identification records, inspection records, evidence preservation list, confiscation items list, seizure list, photographs, two mobile phones, expert opinion on electronic gaming facility and equipment, household registration information, the arrest process, criminal judgment document, administrative penalty decision document, and receipt of returned illicit money, all of which are sufficient to establish the case.


A local people's procuratorate charged: On the afternoon of April 3, 2014, defendant Shu had a dispute with Yuan over worker wages at the Xujia Town Community Service Center. Subsequently, defendant Shu contacted defendant Ma by phone for assistance. Around 9:30 p.m. that day, defendant Shu, defendant Ma, and four young men gathered by Ma, who are currently at large, arrived at the Xujia Town Community Service Center with pickaxes and other tools and injured Yuan, causing a fracture in Yuan's left calcaneus. According to the appraisal, the injury to Yuan's left heel was classified as a secondary minor injury. After the incident, defendant Ma was apprehended and brought to justice, while defendant Shu voluntarily surrendered to the public security organ on April 25, 2014.


It was further established that defendants Zhang and Liu sold the stolen Jingyangguang brand electric vehicle to Xu, receiving RMB 900. After the incident, the police recovered the Jingyangguang brand electric vehicle from Xu and returned it to the victim. Zhang and Liu raised no objections to these facts during the trial. This is corroborated by the victim Wu's statement records, witness testimony records from Yi and Xu, identification records and photographs produced by the public security organs, the valuation conclusion document (No. 170 of 2017) issued by the Price Appraisal Center of a district in Changzhou City, the list of items seized and returned by a branch of the Changzhou City Public Security Bureau, and the apprehension report produced by officers from the Dongcheng Police Station of a district branch of the Changzhou City Public Security Bureau, all of which are sufficient to establish the facts of the case.


The prosecution alleges: On May 1, 2013, defendant Chen set up a gambling den in the form of "Ba Er Zhang" (a type of card game) on an open space in front of No. 15, Qi Jiguang Road, Haimen Street, Jiaojiang District, a certain city. This activity attracted gamblers, including Huang A, Wang, Zhou, among others, to participate. Defendant Huang was employed by Chen to keep watch for the casino. On June 3, police officers captured defendants Chen and Huang at the gambling site. During this period, the casino illegally profited by 30,000 yuan, and Huang earned a personal income of 2,000 yuan for keeping watch for 15 days. During the trial, defendant Chen returned the illegal proceeds of 30,000 yuan. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Chen and Huang during the court hearing and have been corroborated by the confessions of gamblers Huang A, Wang, and Zhou, along with investigation records, identification records, the circumstances leading to the arrest, the criminal judgment, the certificate of release upon sentence completion, and administrative penalty decision, all of which are sufficient for confirmation.


Established through trial: At approximately 2 a.m. on July 17, 2014, defendants Sun, Guan, Fu, and others, while shopping at a small shop located at the intersection of Tongyang Road and Guangming Road in a certain town within a certain county, got into a dispute with Wang, who was also there to shop, over a trivial matter. Sun, Guan, Fu, and others assaulted Wang, and Sun used a beer bottle to injure the right arm of victim Wei, who had come to mediate. According to the criminal forensic evaluation by the public security bureau of the county, Wei’s injuries were classified as minor. After the incident, Sun, Guan, and Fu reached a mediation agreement with Wei and collectively compensated Wei with 100,000 RMB, obtaining the victim Wei's understanding and forgiveness. It was also found that the county's public security bureau issued an administrative penalty decision document (No. 699 for 2014) on July 18, 2014, deciding to administratively detain perpetrator Guan for fifteen days for harming Wang. The detention period was from July 18, 2014, to August 2, 2014. The aforementioned facts were not contested by the three defendants during the court trial, and they are substantiated by documentary evidence such as the registration form for case acceptance, administrative penalty decision, account of case arrival, household registration certificates, photos of the injuries, hospitalization records, the mediation agreement, and the letter of understanding. Testimonies from witnesses Zhang, Sun, Wang (referred to as Wang Jia), Li, and Gao, along with statements from victims Wei and Wang, the forensic evaluation report issued by the forensic medical examination department of the county’s public security bureau, and records of the scene inspection, checks, and identifications, as well as video surveillance footage from the crime scene, are all sufficient to establish the facts.


Upon trial, it was found that on August 28, 2018, the defendant Zhao, under the pretense of securing a job as a security inspector at a certain city's Wusu Airport for the wife of the victim Xi, whose name is Zhang, received a transfer of 30,000 yuan via Alipay from Xi in a park next to the Yaoluo Bridge in the county town of a certain city. On the morning of September 14 of the same year, under the pretense of needing additional funds, Zhao received 110,000 yuan in cash from Xi in a car parked by the roadside in the Fuli City area of a certain city. The defendant Zhao used the illicit funds to repay personal loans. On June 2, 2019, after Zhao was apprehended, the defendant Chang, upon learning that Zhao had been criminally detained, falsely claimed to Zhao's wife Chen that he could find someone to arrange bail for Zhao. On the morning of June 6 of the same year, he defrauded 40,000 yuan in cash in the Youshanmeijun community, Jiancaoping District, and in the evening at 19:00 tricked a WeChat transfer of 9,950 yuan. Chang used all the illicit funds to repay personal debts. On June 4, 2019, Zhao's family reimbursed Xi for all the funds, obtaining the victim's forgiveness. On July 4, 2019, Chang's family reimbursed Chen for all the money, obtaining the victim's forgiveness. The aforementioned facts were undisputed by defendants Zhao and Chang during the trial, and were corroborated by evidence from the criminal investigation team in charge of the Julu area from the Xinghuarange sub-bureau of the Public Security Bureau of a certain city, including the case registration form, filing decision, arrest process, and investigation report; the victim Xi's and Chen's reports and interrogation records, forgiveness letters; testimonies from witnesses Wu, Li, Ji, Zhang, and Qiao; identification records; Zhang's Alipay transaction records, chat logs between Chen and Chang, WeChat transfer records, transaction details from Guangda Bank; household registration certifications and confessions from defendants Zhao and Chang, which sufficiently confirm the findings.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city charges that: 1. At around 1 a.m. on August 8, 2014, defendants Li, Liu, and He (who was under 16 years old at the time of the incident), Chen Jia (already sentenced), Huang Jia, and Huang Yi (both handled in a separate case) went to the chicken farm at Tanpeng Reservoir in Suwei Town, a certain district of a certain city, and stole 64 chickens raised by the victim, Chen Yi. 2. At around 1 a.m. on August 26, 2014, defendants Li, Liu, and He, Chen Jia, Huang Jia, and Huang Yi again went to the aforementioned chicken farm and stole 30 chickens raised by the victim, Chen Yi. Each of the stolen chickens weighed about 2.5 kilograms, and according to the appraisal, the 94 chickens stolen were valued at a total of 6,580 yuan at the time of the incident. On December 24, 2014, defendant Li was arrested; on January 3, 2015, defendant Liu was arrested. Although Li and Liu did not truthfully confess to the above facts during the investigation phase, they voluntarily admitted in court to committing the aforementioned theft. The above facts were not disputed by defendants Li and Liu during the trial, and were corroborated by evidence such as the case registration form, the decision to file a case, the arrest process, the identification record, the criminal case scene identification record and identification site photos, the criminal judgment, witness testimonies from Chen Jia and He, the price appraisal conclusion and appraisal opinion notice from a certain city's price appraisal center, the victim Chen Yi's statement, the defendants Li and Liu's confessions, and household registration certificates, all of which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The prosecution alleges: On April 30, 2014, after conspiring together, Zhou, Cai, and Li orchestrated a plan where Cai, at the west gate of Lixiang Park pedestrian path in Nanshan District, Shenzhen, approached the victim, Mr. Chen, asking for help with unloading goods in exchange for payment. Mr. Chen agreed, and Cai then found Zhou, pretending to be a pedestrian, with the same pretext. Cai brought Mr. Chen and Zhou to the parking lot of B&Q in Nanshan District. Cai took out an electronic component, claiming it was valuable (worth 100 RMB each) and asked the two to handle it carefully, before leaving the parking lot on some pretext.

Subsequently, Li appeared, pretending to be an employee of Sanyo and falsely stated his willingness to purchase the electronic components from Mr. Chen and Zhou for 150 RMB each. Zhou then persuaded Mr. Chen that they should pool money to buy the electronic components from Cai and resell them. Mr. Chen agreed. After Li left on some pretext, Zhou and Mr. Chen expressed their intention to buy the electronic components to Cai, who feigned reluctance but then agreed. Cai accompanied Mr. Chen to withdraw a total of 85,000 RMB from his home and the bank, while Zhou left pretending to get money.

Later, the three met near the entrance of the Rainbow Mall in Nanshan District, where Cai, on the pretext of not being able to conduct the transaction with multiple people, tricked Mr. Chen into handing over the 85,000 RMB to Zhou and told Mr. Chen to go to the Agricultural Bank to look for Li. Subsequently, Zhou and Cai left the location, ceasing contact with Mr. Chen. Unable to find Li, Mr. Chen realized he had been deceived and reported the matter to the police. On May 24, 2014, police arrested Zhou, Cai, and Li in a certain village in a certain district of Shenzhen.


Upon trial, it was found that at approximately 10 PM on September 20, 2016, defendants Zhou, He, and "A" (at large) were at the entrance of No. 51, Lane 4, Tuanjie Road, Jiefeng, Xiangzhou District, a certain city, where they saw victims Sheng and He together. Defendant Zhou suspected that victim Sheng and He had an ambiguous relationship, which led to an altercation with victim Sheng. Subsequently, defendants Zhou, He, and "A" assaulted victim Sheng, resulting in injuries to Sheng. According to the assessment, the injuries sustained by victim Sheng were classified as minor injuries, level two. Defendant Zhou was apprehended by the Nanxi Police Station of the Public Security Bureau of a certain city on October 27, 2016. On November 14 of the same year, defendant He surrendered to the Xiangzhou Branch of the Public Security Bureau of a certain city. It was also found that after the incident, defendants Zhou and He compensated victim Sheng for his losses and obtained his understanding. The above facts were undisputed by defendants Zhou and He during the trial, and were corroborated by the statements and identification records of victim Sheng, testimonies and identification records of witnesses He, Zheng, and another He, apprehension records, arrival explanations, scene investigation report, resident population information, photocopy of identity card, proof of no criminal record, evidence retrieval notices and lists, mobile communication client details from a certain country, case handling explanations, letter of understanding, people's mediation agreement, identification documents, notification of identification opinions, scene photographs, and other evidence, sufficient to establish the case.


The prosecution charged that on May 17, 2019, at around 3 a.m., due to Sun being beaten, defendants Sun and Liu (already sentenced) gathered Zheng and Bao, Chang, Yang, Huang, Zhao, Gao, Wan, and Zhang (all already sentenced) to engage in a brawl at Wanda Plaza in the Tiexi District of a certain city with the individuals who had beaten Sun. After the aforementioned defendants arrived at the scene of the incident armed with machetes, clubs, and other instruments, they mistakenly identified the victim Xu and his friends as their intended targets and chased them with weapons. During the incident, Sun, armed with a weapon, joined Zheng and others in pursuing Xu and his friends. Bao, holding a machete, injured the victim Xu by chopping him, causing Xu to fall to the ground and go into shock, after which several defendants fled the scene. According to forensic examination, victim Xu sustained a distal fracture of the left radius and soft tissue laceration of the left wrist with hypovolemic s


Upon examination, it was found that on February 23, 2014, at approximately 2 p.m., defendants Cai and Li, along with others, assaulted the victim, Li Yi, at the intersection of Dongfanghong Street and Dongshuncheng Road in the Mudan District of Heze City over a trivial matter. This resulted in soft tissue damage to Li Yi's nose and right eye, bilateral nasal bone fractures, and a fracture of the medial wall of the right eye socket. A forensic examination confirmed that Li Yi's injuries constituted minor injuries. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Cai and Li during the court hearing. Moreover, these facts are sufficiently corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses Sun, Li Bing, Liu, and others, the victim Li Yi's statement, injury assessment report, technical photographs, household registration certificate, arrest records, agreement documents, and receipts.


Upon trial, it was found that the defendant Sun had a dispute with the victim Yan over Yan sending WeChat messages to his girlfriend. On September 18, 2017, Sun contacted the defendants Yang, Wang, and Bo (handled in a separate case). The four of them drove to Experimental High School in a vehicle driven by Sun. After Yan and a classmate left Experimental High School, Sun, Yang, Bo, and Wang took Yan and his classmate, also named Sun, to a small square opposite the school. Bo and Yang assaulted Yan, and Sun assaulted the classmate who tried to intervene, while threatening other classmates not to approach. Wang threatened the onlooking classmates with an extendable baton. When teachers from Experimental High School arrived to stop the fight, and Yan and his classmate returned to the school entrance, Sun retrieved hoe handles from the car trunk. Sun and Yang each took one, and Yang struck Yan once with a hoe handle. Bo proceeded to punch and kick Yan. Sun continued holding a hoe handle, and Wang held the extendable baton, intimidating the onlooking students not to approach. According to the forensic evaluation: Yan sustained a nasal bone fracture, assessed as a minor injury of second degree. After the incident, defendants Sun, Yang, and Wang voluntarily surrendered to the police. The aforementioned facts were uncontested by the defendants during the trial and are corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses Bo, Xu, another Sun, Gong, Zhu, Liu, and Wang A, as well as the Jiaohe City Public Security and Judicial Appraisal Center’s bodily injury assessment report, and video recordings, which are sufficient to conclude the case. The civil aspect has been privately settled, with defendant Sun compensating the victim Yan a total of 70,000 RMB for various economic losses.


The prosecution alleged that on April 24, 2020, at 9 p.m., the victim, Yu, along with friends Chen and Zheng, got into a verbal altercation over a singing issue with manager Dai A (handled in a separate case), waiter Dai B (handled in a separate case), and Hu (handled in a separate case) at Old Cannon Music Barbecue in the ** District of Changchun City. The three pushed Yu outside and assaulted him. Defendants Jing, Wang, and Jiang also followed outside and assaulted Yu. Later, manager Dai A, waiter Dai B, and Hu returned to the establishment. Shortly thereafter, defendant Jing, without any reason, chased and attacked Yu with a wine bottle. Seeing this, defendants Wang and Jiang also chased and attacked Yu with wine bottles, each throwing a bottle that hit Yu in the head. After the incident, defendants Jing, Wang, and Jiang surrendered to the public security authorities and compensated the victim, Yu, with 160,000 RMB, obtaining his forgiveness.


The prosecution charged that at around 24:00 on August 15, 2014, defendants Wu and victim Fang had a verbal altercation and physical fight at the entrance of Good Voice KTV in a certain town of a certain city. Defendants Wu and Song injured Fang, and it was identified that Fang's injury was minor. Both parties have now reached a criminal reconciliation. Additionally, it was found that on October 23, 2014, defendant Wu was arrested by the public security authorities at the train station in a certain city; on October 4, 2014, public security officers interrogated defendant Song at the Shiliting Police Station of the Public Security Bureau in a certain city, and on December 25, 2014, defendant Song went to the Shiliting Police Station of the Public Security Bureau in a certain city and was criminally detained on that day. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Wu and Song during the trial, and were confirmed with evidence such as the statement from victim Fang, the testimony of witness Zhao, the forensic identification report, medical records, proof of arrival at the scene, household registration certificates, and reconciliation materials, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city in Hebei Province charged: At around midnight on January 14, 2013, Wu (currently at large under criminal detention), along with the defendants Chen and Hu, were entertaining at Mai Ge KTV on Jianhua West Road in a certain district of a certain city. Due to a trivial matter, they got into a verbal altercation with the victim, Wang Y. Wu, along with the defendants Chen and Hu, used beer bottles and fists to injure the victim, Wang Y. According to an assessment, the victim Wang Y.'s injuries were classified as minor injuries of the second degree. The prosecution, while making these charges, also provided corresponding evidence, believing that the defendants Chen and Hu have constituted the crime of X and should be punished according to the law. Defendant Chen raised no objection to the facts of the charge of crime X by the prosecution and pleaded guilty in court. Defendant Hu also raised no objection to the facts of the charge of crime X by the prosecution and pleaded guilty in court. After a trial, it was found that at around midnight on January 14, 2013, Wu (currently at large under criminal detention) and defendants Chen and Hu were entertaining at Mai Ge KTV on Jianhua West Road in a certain district of a certain city. Due to a trivial matter, they got into a verbal altercation with the victim, Wang Y. Wu, along with the defendants Chen and Hu, used beer bottles and fists to injure the victim, Wang Y. According to an assessment, the victim Wang Y.'s injuries were classified as minor injuries of the second degree. After the incident, the defendants Chen and Hu reached a settlement with the victim Wang Y. The above facts were not disputed by the defendants Chen and Hu during the court proceedings, and there was sufficient evidence to establish these facts, including household registration certificates of the defendants Chen and Hu, testimonies of witnesses Wang A, Li, Zheng, and Hou, the victim Wang Y.'s statement, the confessions and defenses of the defendants Chen and Hu, appraisal opinions, and identification records.


The People's Procuratorate of Pudong New Area of a certain city charges that on November 13, 2015, defendants Xu, Li, and Hu, after drinking, unjustifiably beat and injured victims Li, Liang, Mou, and Yan in the restroom of the Holiday Karaoke on XXX Zhangyang Road, Pudong New Area, in a certain city. According to forensic identification, victim Li sustained minor injuries, specifically contusions to the left auricle and soft tissue behind the ear, contusions to both eyes, and soft tissue contusions on the right hand. Victim Liang sustained minor injuries including a subgaleal hematoma, contusions to the left ear, and soft tissue contusions on the face. Victim Mou sustained minor injuries, specifically contusions to the soft tissue of the face and the soft tissue of the right eyelid. On January 7, 2016, after receiving notification by phone, defendants Xu, Li, and Hu turned themselves in and truthfully confessed to the criminal facts. It was also found that the three defendants have compensated the victims for their losses and obtained their forgiveness. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Xu, Li, and Hu during the court trial and are supported by victim statements and identification records from Li, Liang, Mou, and Yan, which were verified as true during the trial, as well as by witness testimony from Zang, forensic identification opinions, related injury examination notices, letters of forgiveness from the victims, the 110 police report issued by the public security organ, and the account of the incident, all of which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The prosecution alleges: The defendants, Zhang and Liu, are in a romantic relationship. On November 15, 2015, they rented room 208 at the Xincheng Family Inn located in Unit 5, Building 38, Yanghaitang Community, a certain district of a certain city. Around 3 PM on November 20, Zhang and Liu approached the inn's front desk to borrow a phone from the owner, the victim Xie, to send a photo. The victim Xie lent them his iPhone 6 Plus (16GB) valued at 4,390 RMB for this purpose. While using the phone, taking advantage of Xie's distraction, Zhang and Liu stole the phone and fled the scene. Later, near the Wangchengpo Post Office in a certain district of the city, they sold the phone at a low price of 1,800 RMB to a person named Xiao (handled in a separate case). The proceeds from the sale were squandered by both defendants. On December 8, 2015, Zhang and Liu were apprehended by police officers at Xiaoxiang Building on Fubuhe Road in a certain district of the city.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain place charges that on August 21, 2013, at approximately 9 PM, the defendant Ma, in collusion with Yang, Lou, and Xiao (at large), encountered Qí at the seafood market on the East Outer Ring Road in Cangzhou City. Previously, Ma suspected that Qí had smashed his store, and Lou suspected that Qí had smashed his car. The four then took Qí to a car, where Ma demanded compensation from Qí for the smashed car and store. After Yang got out of the car, Lou and Qí had a dispute inside the car, during which Lou used a knife to injure Qí's head. Forensic examination determined that Qí sustained a minor injury of the second degree. That night, under the coercion of Ma and others, Qí had a friend transfer 44,200 yuan to an account provided by Ma. On the morning of August 22, at around 7 AM, Ma, Lou, and Xiao left Qí at the entrance of the city hospital and departed. It was further ascertained that after the incident, the defendants Ma, Yang, and Lou jointly compensated the victim Qí for economic losses amounting to 80,000 yuan. During the trial, the defendants Ma, Yang, and Lou did not dispute the aforementioned facts. There are confessions from the three defendants, statements from the victim Qí, testimonies from witnesses Wang, Zhang, Qiang, Li, and Qí J, a record of victim Qí identifying Ma and Lou, a forensic identification report (2013) Lin Jian Zi No. 434 issued by Cang County Judicial Medical Appraisal Center, an IOU issued by the victim Qí to Ma, a mediation agreement reached by both parties, receipts for compensation, a transfer receipt from the Agricultural Bank of China, documentation of the arrest of Ma and Yang, and Lou's voluntary surrender provided by Xinhua Sub-bureau of Cangzhou City Public Security Bureau, as well as household registration certificates of the defendants Ma, Yang, and Lou, all of which are sufficient to substantiate the charge.


After trial, it was ascertained: At approximately 3 PM on December 20, 2014, defendants Gu and Dong went to the entrance of No. 38 Shamao River in this district. Gu acted as the lookout while Dong took advantage of victim Rong's inattentiveness to reach into Rong's jacket pocket and steal a black Xiaomi phone (worth 351 RMB), which he then handed over to Gu. Later, defendant Gu went to No. 23 Shamao River in this district and, taking advantage of victim Wang's inattentiveness, reached into Wang's clothing pocket to steal a gold 32GB Japanese version iPhone 5s (worth 1900 RMB). Around 3 PM on December 20, 2014, the police apprehended defendants Gu and Dong at Shamao River in this district. After the incident, the police recovered the stolen black Xiaomi phone and the gold 32GB Japanese version iPhone 5s, which have been returned to the victims, Rong and Wang, respectively. The aforementioned facts were uncontested by defendants Gu and Dong during the court hearing. Additionally, there is evidence from the statements of victims Rong and Wang, testimonies of witnesses Wang, Zhou, Yi, and Zhang, a price assessment report, criminal judgment, administrative penalty decision, list of seized items, return list, basic information of disabled persons, disability certificates, photographs, identification records, the account of the arrest, and identity proofs, all of which are sufficient for corroboration.


The prosecution agency charges: On June 6, 2016, at around 1 p.m., the defendant Cai, in collusion with the defendant Li, went to deliver goods on the second floor of Building 10, Luwan Jiayuan, Chaichao Street, Beilun District, a certain city. They used a key found at the firebox location to open the door of Room 201 and stole a Europura spray machine (valued at RMB 3,807) and a bucket of Nippon paint (valued at RMB 300) that belonged to the victim, Wang. The aforementioned items have been recovered and returned to the victim. After the incident, Cai, under the arrangement of the public security agency, contacted Li via phone and persuaded him to surrender at the police station. On June 9, 2016, Li surrendered at the Chaichao Police Station of the Beilun Branch of the Public Security Bureau of a certain city. It was further found that after the incident, Cai and Li compensated the victim Wang for the losses and obtained his forgiveness. Cai and Li raised no objections to the above facts during the trial, which are corroborated by the victim Wang's statements, the identification record and photos, the extraction record, the seizure decision, the seizure list and photos, the return list, the price appraisal conclusion, the letter of forgiveness, the on-site inspection record, the site plan and photos, the vehicle files, the arrest account, population information, among other evidence, which are sufficient to confirm the facts.


The prosecution charges that in the early morning of June 14, 2013, defendants Wang and Meng, along with Zeng, Yang, Pan, "Chang" (all handled in separate cases), and others, conspired to go to the side of No. 139, Dianqian Village, Chengdong Street of this city, to steal a three-wheeled electric vehicle parked on the roadside by the victim, Lin. An appraisal determined that the stolen electric vehicle was valued at 5,290 RMB. On June 16, 2013, defendants Wang and Meng were arrested by public security authorities in Chengbei Street of this city. After being brought to justice, both defendants truthfully confessed to the facts of the case. The aforementioned facts were not disputed during the trial by defendants Wang and Meng, and were corroborated by the testimony of co-conspirator Zeng, the statement of the victim Lin, testimonies from witnesses Yang, Pan, Jiang Jia, Chen, Mo, Hong, and Jiang Yi, previous criminal judgments, a price appraisal report, identification records, household registration certificates of the defendants, and proof of the arrest process, all of which are sufficient to establish the facts.


After trial, it has been found: 1. On October 2, 2013, at approximately 18:00, the defendants Gao and Chen formed a partnership and stole a wallet from Yao’s shoulder bag on Bus No. 199 from Chaoyang Market in a certain city to a certain town in a certain district. The wallet contained over 100 yuan in cash, a resident ID card, bank cards, shopping cards, and other items. 2. On October 7, 2013, at approximately 17:00, the defendants Gao and Chen collaborated again to steal a wallet from Hu’s bag on Bus No. 19 from a certain city's train station to a certain district. The wallet contained over 290 yuan in cash, a resident ID card, and bank cards. 3. On October 16, 2013, at approximately 10:00, the defendants Gao and Chen worked together to steal a wallet from Qin’s bag on Bus No. 199 from a certain town in a certain district to Chaoyang Market in a certain city. The wallet contained over 700 yuan in cash, a resident ID card, and bank cards. Additionally, it has been found that after being brought to justice, the defendants Gao and Chen truthfully confessed the criminal facts. The above facts were not disputed by the defendants Gao and Chen during the court trial and are sufficiently substantiated by the testimonies of victims Hu, Yao, and Qin, as well as recognition records and investigation process evidence provided by the Public Security Bureau of a certain district in a certain city.


The prosecution charges: On the morning of December 24, 2014, after defendants Zhu and Hu left Company A, they returned to Dormitory Room 1517 located on Fuzhang Road in the Economic Development Zone of Hefei City to collect their luggage. They discovered a white Lenovo Z410-IFI laptop belonging to the victim, Zheng, in the dormitory and conspired to steal the laptop to sell for money. At around 6 PM that evening, Zhu and Hu returned to Room 1517 and stole the laptop from the cabinet. The two took the laptop to Lianhua New Village and sold it for 1,300 yuan. On December 30, 2014, the police apprehended Zhu and Hu at an internet cafe in the Economic Development Zone. Subsequently, the two compensated the victim a total of 4,400 yuan and received the victim’s understanding. According to the appraisal, the stolen Lenovo laptop was valued at 3,887 yuan. To prove the existence of the aforementioned facts, the prosecution has listed the following evidence: the confessions and defenses of defendants Zhu and Hu; the statement of the victim, Zheng; the testimony of the witness, Ye; records of on-site investigation, on-site identification records, and recognition records; audiovisual materials; appraisal opinions; report slips, household registration certificates, case closure process, letter of understanding, and receipts, among other evidence.


The prosecution charges: On the evening of April 18, 2014, the defendants Wu, Xie, and Yan (handled in a separate case), among others, had a dispute with Mo near Tengfeng Textile Co., Ltd. in Honghe Town, Xiuzhou District, Jiaxing City, due to trivial matters. Afterwards, Li (handled in a separate case) and others chased and struck Mo, causing minor injuries to his waist. On June 5 of the same year, knowing that Li and others were suspected of the crime of intentional injury, defendants Wu and Xie, at the request of Li, colluded with Wang and others. Wang went to the Honghe Police Station to falsely claim that he was the one who injured Mo. Later, Wang was criminally detained and arrested on suspicion of intentional injury. It was further found that on January 27, 2015, Wu and Xie surrendered to the public security organs. The above facts were not contested by defendants Wu and Xie during the trial, and were substantiated by evidence such as the outpatient medical records, discharge records, administrative penalty decision, criminal judgment, testimony from witnesses Yan, Wang, and Mo, forensic appraisal of human injury degree, on-site investigation materials, identification records, photographs, and explanations of the arrest process.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city charged that on the morning of July 9, 2014, the defendant Zhou, in collusion with the defendant Liu, went to a certain village in a certain district of a certain city and used a chainsaw to cut down a tree to steal a ginkgo tree that had been requisitioned by the high-tech industrial park of a certain city. When the ginkgo tree was cut down and about to be transported away, they were discovered by the public, and both defendants fled the scene. According to the appraisal, the value of the cut-down ginkgo tree was 18,000 RMB. After the incident, defendant Liu voluntarily surrendered and truthfully confessed his crime; defendant Zhou, after being brought to justice, initially failed to truthfully confess the main facts of the crime, but after education, he confessed truthfully and compensated the victim for the loss, obtaining the victim's understanding. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Zhou and Liu during the trial, and were corroborated by evidence such as the household registration form retrieved by the sub-bureau of a certain public security bureau of a certain city, testimonies from witnesses Yang Jia and Yang Yi, the price assessment certification issued by the price certification center of a certain district in a certain city, records of on-site inspection, examination, and identification created by the sub-bureau of a certain public security bureau, as well as photographed evidence enough to establish the case.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city charged that: In the early morning of June 22, 2021, defendants Li and Wu (handled in a separate case), after conspiring, went to the vicinity of No. ××, ×× Street, in a certain district of a certain city. Using methods such as pulling car doors, they stole 1,670 RMB and a pack of "Zhonghua" (Soft Red) cigarettes, valued at 58.3 RMB, from a BY×××× car. In the afternoon of June 28, 2021, defendants Liu, Li, and Wang conspired to go to No. 13, Waterfront Residence, ×× Street in a certain city. Using methods such as climbing and pushing doors, they broke in and stole more than 12,800 RMB. On July 1, 2021, defendants Liu, Li, and Wang were caught by a certain agency in a certain district of a certain city and later truthfully confessed to the aforementioned facts. After the incident, defendants Liu and Wang returned 461 RMB and 1,880 RMB, respectively, which had been restituted to the victim Ma by a certain agency. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Liu, Li, and Wang during the trial process and are supported by the statements of victims Huang and Ma, as read out and presented in court, the testimony of witness Zhang, the confession and identification records of involved person Wu A, the identification records of defendants Liu, Li, and Wang, the cigarette price certificate issued by Jiang's provincial tobacco company in a certain city's company, surveillance video, the seizure decision, the list of seized and returned items, the case investigation process and situation report provided by a certain agency, this court's criminal judgment, and the identity documents of defendants Liu, Li, and Wang. These pieces of evidence confirm the defendants' in-court confessions on the above facts, which are sufficient for conviction.


The defendants Xiong and Li voluntarily pleaded guilty, admitted the criminal facts charged by the public prosecution agency, and were willing to accept punishment. The aforementioned facts are not disputed by the defendants Xiong and Li during the trial and are corroborated by evidence such as testimonies from witnesses Yu, Yang, Qian, and others, identification records, and the case-solving report issued by the police officers from the Xicheng Police Station of Jintan Branch of Changzhou Public Security Bureau, which are sufficient to establish the facts. Regarding the criminal record of the defendants Xiong and Li, there is supporting evidence in the form of the court's criminal judgment (2018) Su 0482 Xingchu No. 352.


The prosecution charges: 1. In June 2015, the defendants Chen and Wu, without the victim Li's knowledge, fraudulently obtained a credit card from the Bank of Communications using Li's resident ID card (card number 45×××58), and by the time the case was discovered, had collectively used the card to overdraw and cash out over 18,700 RMB in principal. The defendants Chen and Wu had no objections to this fact during the trial, and it was corroborated by the prosecution's in-court presentation of the victim Li's statement, testimonies from the witnesses Wang and Feng, a list of collected evidence and release receipts produced by the Gaoyou Public Security Bureau, photos of the ID card and credit card, credit card application forms and transaction records, as well as surveillance footage. 2. In October 2015, the defendant Chen, without the victim Li's knowledge, fraudulently obtained a credit card from SPD Bank using Li's resident ID card (card number 62×××70), and by the time the case was discovered, had used the card to overdraw 2,000 RMB in principal for consumption. The defendant Chen had no objections to this fact during the trial, and it was corroborated by the prosecution's in-court presentation of the victim Li's statement and the credit card application form and transaction records. On October 28, 2015, the victim Li, after receiving a collection call from the Bank of Communications, reported to the Gaoyou Public Security Bureau. The defendants Chen and Wu were apprehended on December 1, 2015, and truthfully confessed the main criminal facts, having repaid all the outstanding bank debts. After being brought to the case, the defendant Chen assisted the public security organs in apprehending the co-defendant Wu. This fact was corroborated by the prosecution’s in-court presentation of the confessions of both defendants, the victim Li’s statement, a case acceptance registration form, a capture process record, a police dispatch work registration form produced by the Gaoyou Public Security Bureau, bank repayment receipts, and basic population information.


The prosecution alleges that since March 2013, the defendant Chen, in collusion with the defendant Zhu, illegally traded imitation guns for profit at booth XX in building X, district X, XX City. They jointly rented a warehouse located at No. XX, XX Road, XX City to store the goods and procured them from locations such as a certain place called Hai and other areas, selling them abroad. On May 31, 2013, the public security authorities seized a total of 343,609 imitation guns (worth 402,630 RMB) from the warehouse and Yiwu Port. On June 4, 2013, the defendant Chen voluntarily surrendered to the Yiwu City Mall Police Station. The aforementioned facts were not contested by defendants Zhu and Chen during the trial. Additionally, these facts are corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses Fang and Wang, the list of seized and returned items, the price appraisal report, the imitation gun identification document, the search records and photos, the non-prosecution decision, the document recognizing the voluntary surrender, the arrest process documentation, explanation of the situation, the confessions and identification evidence of defendants Zhu and Chen, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


A local People's Procuratorate charged that on August 4, 2019, at approximately 23:50, the defendant Jia, after drinking, drove a BYD-branded small car with license plate number ××× along Yuehe North Road in the Kangbashi District from south to north. When reaching a point 60 meters north of the intersection with Keji Street, Jia's vehicle collided with a Toyota-branded small passenger vehicle with license plate number ×××, parked by Deng X from a certain place, on the east side of Yuehe North Road in a non-motor vehicle lane. Subsequently, Jia's vehicle collided with a Volkswagen-branded small car with license plate number ×××, parked by Wei M from a northern place, causing different degrees of damage to three vehicles. After the accident, the defendant Jia abandoned the car and fled, contacting the defendant Chen to act as the driver. Defendant Chen, to cover for the drunk-driving Jia, claimed to the traffic police that he was the driver of the accident vehicle with license plate number ×××. Later, after numerous verifications by the traffic police, it was confirmed that defendant Jia was the driver of the vehicle with license plate number ×××. Tests showed that defendant Jia's blood alcohol content was 170.39mg/100ml, indicating a state of intoxication. It was determined that defendant Jia bore full responsibility for the accident. Defendant Jia has compensated the vehicle owner An X 1,000 yuan for vehicle repair costs.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in a certain city charges: On March 29, 2011, defendant Yuan registered the Henan Yuanbang Investment Co., Ltd. at No. 1111, Unit 1, Fuyadongfang, at the intersection of Wangcheng Road and Zhongzhou Road in a certain district of a certain city, and was responsible for the company's daily operations. Defendant Zhang served as the general manager of the company. Defendants Yuan and Zhang, knowing that the company did not have financing qualifications, instructed company employees to use promotional activities and referrals to promise a fixed monthly interest of 2.2%-2.3% to client managers, who would then indirectly attract public deposits at lower interest rates than 2.2%-2.3% monthly from unspecified groups. As of November 28, 2014, they had absorbed funds totaling 123.6725 million yuan, with 45.4505 million yuan remaining unpaid. To support the aforementioned charges, the prosecution submitted evidence to the court, including documentary evidence, witness testimonies, expert opinions, defendant confessions and defenses, and proof of household registration and current performance.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district of Lianyungang City accused and charged that between September 14 and September 21, 2014, the defendant Geng, either alone or together with the defendant Lu, repeatedly went to the Huihuang Internet Cafe and Wangshangfei Internet Cafe on Tongguan South Road in a certain district of this city, using the method of pilfering, and stole three mobile phones. Geng committed three cases, with the total amount involved being 2,600 RMB, and Lu committed two cases, with the total amount involved being 2,100 RMB. The details are as follows: 1. At about 8 a.m. on September 14, 2014, defendants Geng and Lu went to the Huihuang Internet Cafe on Tongguan South Road in a certain district, and stole a Xiaomi mobile phone worth 800 RMB that Feng had placed on the computer desk while Feng was sleeping. 2. At about 7 a.m. on September 20, 2014, defendant Geng went to the Huihuang Internet Cafe on Tongguan South Road in a certain district, and stole a Samsung mobile phone worth 500 RMB that Xia had placed on the computer desk while Xia was sleeping. 3. At about 9 p.m. on September 21, 2014, defendants Geng and Lu went to the Wangshangfei Internet Cafe on Tongguan South Road in a certain district, and stole a Samsung mobile phone worth 1,300 RMB that Wu had placed on the computer desk while Wu was sleeping. After the incident, defendants Geng and Lu have fully compensated the economic losses of the three victims.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in Hangzhou accused that on March 7, 2013, at around 19:00, the defendants Li, Li, Chen, along with others, went to the vicinity of Wensan Road and Jingzhou Road in a certain district of this city. They used pickpocketing methods to steal a Coolpad 5870 mobile phone (valued at 669 RMB) from the victim Xu's jacket pocket, and were subsequently caught on the scene by anti-pickpocketing team members. After the crime, the stolen property was recovered and returned to the victim. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the defendants Li, Li, Chen during the court trial, and are substantiated by the statements of victim Xu, testimonies of witnesses Wang, Yang, Teng, the list of seized items and photos, return list, explanation of the situation, criminal judgment, proof of release, household registration certificates, arrest records, as well as the identification record and price appraisal conclusion, which together are sufficient for verification.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district of a certain city charged that on November 18, 2015, at around 7 a.m., the defendants Zhou and Xu, along with a man nicknamed "Little Northeast" (real name unknown, handled in a separate case), after conspiring, were involved in an incident near Jinlong Road in a certain bay of a certain district of a certain city. Defendants Zhou and Xu were responsible for keeping watch, while "Little Northeast" stole an iPhone 6s Plus worth 5,929 RMB from the victim, Cheng's backpack. The stolen goods have been sold, and the proceeds have been squandered. On November 24, 2015, defendants Zhou and Xu were apprehended by public security personnel in a certain bay of a certain district of a certain city. After the case was solved, the family of defendant Zhou compensated the victim Cheng for all economic losses on his behalf. It was also found that the victim Cheng issued a letter of forgiveness expressing understanding for the actions of defendants Zhou and Xu. The aforementioned facts were not disputed by defendants Zhou and Xu during the trial, and are corroborated by evidence including the arrest report, case solution report, situation explanation provided by the public security agency, basic information sheet of personnel, criminal judgment, phone call records, invoices, receipts, letter of forgiveness, the victim Cheng's statement, surveillance footage and screenshots, identification records, case records, price verification report, and the confessions of defendants Zhou and Xu, sufficient to establish the charges.


The prosecution alleges that on the evening of December 3, 2017, the defendants Song, Cao, Gao, and Gu were having a meal at the Dingli Fast Food Restaurant at Daxing Farm when they noticed that Wang, who had a conflict with Song, was also drinking at the restaurant. Additionally, Wang's car, with license plate ×××, was parked at the restaurant. The four estimated that after drinking, Wang would drive home. To retaliate against Wang, the four discussed and decided that Cao, who had not been drinking, would drive a car with license plate ××× to take Song near Wang's residential area to wait for Wang, intending to create a traffic accident. Gao and Gu stayed at the restaurant to keep an eye on Wang and informed Song by phone when Wang left the fast food restaurant. Around 9 p.m., Song and Cao spotted Wang driving by, and Cao drove forward to deliberately collide with Wang's car. Song then got out of the car to record a video of Wang, while Cao called the police. On December 5, 2017, Wang sought someone to mediate the matter with Song, and Song demanded 100,000 RMB from Wang. Ultimately, Wang gave Song 70,000 RMB. Song kept 60,000 RMB for himself and gave Cao and Gao 10,000 RMB. After the incident, Song's family compensated Wang 70,000 RMB, and Wang forgave Song, Cao, Gao, and Gu.


The prosecution alleges that at around 1 a.m. on May 28, 2017, defendants Lin and Zhang drove a white "Fukang" sedan to Group 7, Village of a certain town in a certain city. Using tools like "iron pliers" and a utility knife, they stole a 29 cm diameter, 150 cm high "Jindanzi" plant planted by the victim, Zhu. According to the price certification center of a certain city, the "Jindanzi" plant involved in the case was valued at 3,200 yuan. It was also found that the police legally seized one white "Fukang" sedan involved in the case. These facts were not disputed by defendants Lin and Zhang during the trial, and were supported by evidence submitted by the prosecution, including the case registration form, the account of how the two defendants came to be present, the confessions and defenses of the two defendants, the victim's statement, witness testimonies, identification records and photos, on-site identification records and photos, seizure records and inventory, the price certification opinion from the price certification center of a certain city, and the basic information about the permanent resident population of the two defendants, which are sufficient to establish the case.


Upon trial investigation, the findings are as follows:

I. Between October 2014 and February 2015, defendant Wu successively provided shelter for Zhou, Lin, Sun, Dou A, and others to consume methamphetamine (referred to as "ice"). The specific facts are described as follows:

1. One afternoon in early October 2014, defendant Wu provided shelter for Zhou, Lin, and Sun to consume methamphetamine in the office of the Zhongwu Coating Factory operated by Wu in a certain city.

2. On the night of January 31, 2015, defendant Wu provided shelter for Dou A and Dou B to consume methamphetamine in Wu's home at Unit 1, Room 501, Building 33, Yujing Huating Community, a certain district in a certain city.

3. One night in February 2015, defendant Wu provided shelter for Dou A, Zhou A, and Qin to consume methamphetamine in Wu's home at Unit 1, Room 501, Building 33, Yujing Huating Community, a certain district in a certain city. On March 6, 2015, defendant Wu assisted public security agencies in capturing Li, who was suspected of drug trafficking. Defendant Wu did not dispute the aforementioned facts during the trial process, and these facts are supported by the testimonies of witnesses Lin, Sun, Dou A, Dou B, and others, as well as identification transcripts, situation explanations, case-solving reports, proceedings of being brought to justice, and household registration certificates provided by the branch of the public security bureau in a certain district of a certain city. These are sufficient to establish the findings.

II. One night in January 2015, defendant Zhou provided shelter for Lin, Hu, and Sun to consume methamphetamine at Zhou's home in Group 6, Xutai Village, Zizhuang Town, a certain district in a certain city. On March 13, 2015, defendant Zhou voluntarily surrendered himself to the public security agencies. Defendant Zhou and his defense had no objection to the aforementioned facts during the trial process. These facts are supported by the testimonies of witnesses Lin, Sun, and others, as well as identification transcripts, situation explanations, case-solving reports, proceedings of being brought to justice, and household registration certificates provided by the branch of the public security bureau in a certain district of a certain city. These are sufficient to establish the findings.


The prosecution charges: The defendants, Ji and Yin, after premeditating and agreeing to a 50% share each, set up a casino starting from the night of April 20, 2014. The casino was located first in a mahjong parlor in Hongqi New Village in a district of Taizhou, and then in a room on the first floor of 393-9 Lianyi New Village. The casino operation involved Yin as a lookout, while Ji was responsible for recruiting gamblers to participate in gambling using the "draw two cards" method. On the afternoon of April 23, while the defendants Ji and Yin were assembling with individuals like Sheng and others for gambling in the room on the first floor of 393-9 Lianyi New Village, they were caught on the spot by police officers. During this period, the casino profited a total of 12,000 yuan from raking. After the incident, defendant Ji returned the illegal gains of 12,000 yuan. These facts were undisputed by defendants Ji and Yin during the court trial, and they are corroborated by evidence such as the seizure order, testimonies from witnesses Huo, Sheng, Zhang (A), Chen, Su, Zhang (B), Wang, inspection records and photos, identification records, capture process, and administrative penalty decision, which are sufficient to confirm the facts.


Upon trial, it was found that at approximately 11 a.m. on September 18, 2013, the defendants Huang and Wang, during their employment at Suqian Hongding Printing and Packaging Co., Ltd. in Tangnan Village, Shuanggou Town, Sihong County, due to their employer Sun's arrears of wages, entered the No. 3 factory workshop of the company by climbing through a window, and stole one terminal and one toothed ball from the Manroland R705 printing machine stored in the workshop. According to the appraisal, the stolen items were valued at a total of 4,200 yuan. It was also found that after the incident, the defendants Huang and Wang voluntarily turned themselves in to the public security authorities and truthfully confessed their criminal activities and those of their accomplice. During the investigation stage, the defendants Huang and Wang returned all the stolen property to the victim. The above facts are not contested by the defendants Huang and Wang during the trial, and are substantiated by the victim Sun's statement, testimonies from witnesses such as Ma who were not present in court, physical evidence photos, price appraisal reports, the circumstances of the arrest, household registration certificates, and other evidence, which are sufficient to confirm the findings.


Upon trial, it was found: On August 25, 2013, at approximately 16:00, defendants Zhou, Ni, and others, near "Huanglong Commercial City" in Guanghua Street, Lucheng District, a certain city, extorted property from the victim Dai on the pretext that Zhou's foot was injured by the car driven by Dai. Victim Dai was compelled to purchase one carton of Zhonghua brand hard-pack cigarettes and two cartons of soft-pack cigarettes for 1,730 RMB and handed them over to defendants Zhou, Ni, and others. On September 3, 2013, at around 9:00, defendant Zhou and Xu at a traffic light in Shuixin Huichang, Shuixin Street, Lucheng District, a certain city, forcibly entered the car driven by victim Chen, claiming that Xu's right foot was injured by the car driven by Chen. They then instructed him to drive to Jin'ou Hotel in Lucheng District, where they met up with defendant Ni and others who were waiting at the hotel, and extorted property from victim Chen. Victim Chen was forced to hand over one carton of Zhonghua brand soft-pack cigarettes (valued at 650 RMB) and 6,500 RMB in cash to Xu and others. After the incident, Ni's family compensated victim Chen 7,300 RMB. The aforementioned facts were not contested by defendants Zhou and Ni during the trial, and are corroborated by the statements of victims Dai and Chen, testimony of witness Ma, transaction details, price appraisal report, identification records and photos, receipt, administrative penalty decision, arrest process, and demographic information, which are sufficient to establish the facts.


The court, upon examination, established the following facts: On November 5, 2014, at around 6:00 PM, the defendant Fu, due to a prior conflict with the victim Qiao that occurred while driving on the road, contacted the defendant Zhao by phone. Zhao then contacted the defendants Cao and Shi, and they stopped Qiao's vehicle near the Mütong Bridge in a certain town of a certain county and assaulted him, causing injuries. According to the forensic evaluation by the Public Security Judicial Appraisal Center of the county, Qiao sustained a comminuted fracture of the left nasal bone, which constitutes a minor injury of the second degree. It was further established that the four defendants and the victim Qiao reached and fulfilled a civil compensation agreement, and all received Qiao's forgiveness. The defendants Fu, Zhao, Cao, and Shi raised no objections to the above facts during the trial. Additionally, there are explanations regarding their capture, basic resident information on the four defendants, records of mediation, the agreement, receipt slips, a letter of forgiveness, testimonies from witnesses Zhang and Wang, the victim Qiao's statement, the confessions and defenses of the four defendants, the victim’s medical certificate, and the injury assessment report, all of which corroborate the facts sufficiently.


The People's Procuratorate of a certain district in Guangzhou accused that starting from November 2015, defendants Gan and Huang were consecutively employed by the accomplice (handled in a separate case) at the factory located at No. 23, West Eleven Alley, Datang, Shating, Taihe Town, a district in this city. They produced counterfeit shampoos with registered trademarks such as "Head & Shoulders," "Rejoice," and "Clear." On January 5, 2016, at approximately 17:00, the police arrested the two defendants at the above address and seized a batch of counterfeit shampoos with the aforementioned registered trademarks, valued at 90,803 yuan, along with raw materials, empty bottles, hand pumps, and other items. According to the above facts,


The People's Procuratorate of a certain county charges that on May 12, 2014, the criminal suspect Ping was driving a medium-sized ordinary passenger vehicle with the license plate number Su G×××××, traveling from east to west along the Yi-Yang line in a certain county. Upon reaching the road section in front of the old cotton and linen station in a certain town within the county, the vehicle collided with an electric tricycle driven by Miao, resulting in the deaths of Miao and Sun, as well as vehicle damage, causing a major accident. After abandoning the car and fleeing, suspect Ping arrived at the home of Wang in the East Chengshui Shores of a town in the county, where, after consulting with the defendant Wang, it was decided that Wang would impersonate Ping and surrender to the traffic police brigade of the county public security bureau. Suspect Ping also contacted defendant Jiao by phone to provide false testimony during the accident investigation with the traffic police brigade. On May 12, 2014, at around 8 p.m., to cover up for suspect Ping, defendant Wang surrendered to the public security authorities, falsely claiming to be the driver of the vehicle responsible for the accident. Consequently, on May 13, 2014, the county public security bureau placed Wang under criminal detention on suspicion of traffic accident-related crimes. On May 16, 2014, during the investigation and evidence collection by law enforcement, to cover for suspect Ping, defendant Jiao falsely testified that Wang was the driver responsible for the accident. The aforementioned facts were not contested by defendants Wang and Jiao during the court proceedings. The case is further corroborated by testimonies from non-attending witnesses such as Ping and Jin, the case registration form, the decision to file the case, the detention certificate, the notice of detention, the notice of extended detention, the notice of litigation rights and obligations to witnesses, the false confessions of the defendants, household registration certificates, reports on case initiation and break-through, accounts of arrests, explanation of circumstances, and other evidence, which are sufficient to establish the facts.