On June 4, 20 18 15, Zhejiang Higher People's Court publicly pronounced the case of arson and theft (appeal) of Mo Huanjing, the defendant of the first instance of Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, and ruled that the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld. Mo Huanjing's death sentence was submitted to the Supreme People's Court for approval according to law. Mo Huanjing, his defenders and prosecutors attended the court to attend the verdict. Relatives of the victims, NPC deputies, CPPCC members, media reporters and representatives from all walks of life attended the audit.
The presiding judge read out the criminal ruling of the second instance of this case. The criminal ruling shows that the case was confirmed by the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province in the second instance, and the facts of Mo Huanjing's arson and theft were clear, and the evidence was true and sufficient.
Regarding the grounds for appeal and the opinions of both the prosecution and the defense, the Zhejiang Higher People's Court made the following analysis:
(1) Whether Mo Huanjing has the subjective intention of setting fire. First of all, after Mo Huanjing lost all his money by gambling on the night of the incident, his own economic situation has fallen into a dilemma of being unable to save himself. Combined with his confession that he won thanks for borrowing again by setting fire to put out the fire, it is enough to prove that Mo Huanjing has the criminal intention of deliberately setting fire. Secondly, the mobile phone electronic material evidence inspection report proves that Mo Huanjing used her mobile phone to search for key words such as lighter burning and explosion, curtain or wire fire at home, fire cause, fire picture, fire burning speed and fire criminal responsibility at noon and afternoon the day before the incident and at 2: 0 1 to 4: 08 am the day of the incident. The above-mentioned mobile phone search records are enough to prove that Mo Huanjing set fire premeditated. Thirdly, Mo Huanjing deliberately lit it with a lighter, igniting books, living room curtains, sofas and other flammable materials, which eventually led to a serious fire. His ignition behavior was obviously intentional arson. Fourthly, according to the introduction of the fire department, the fire point is located in the west of the south middle of the living room, that is, the burnt sofa on the balcony side and the curtains on the master bedroom side. According to the evidence in the case, it can be determined that the sofa and curtains were the earliest items in the house that caught fire. According to Mo Huanjing's defense, that is, he didn't light the book with a lighter first, and then found that the curtain caught fire in the process of looking for a newspaper, which reflected his firm will to set fire and didn't stop the intention and behavior of setting fire. Therefore, the defender's opinion is that Mo Huanjing only carried out the ignition behavior without deliberately setting fire to the curtain, which belongs to an accidental fire and should be convicted of fire loss. Moreover, the suspension of the arson crime is obviously inconsistent with the ascertained facts and legal provisions, which cannot be established and will not be adopted.
(2) Whether the subjective consequences of Mo Huanjing in this case belong to negligence. In this case, Mo Huanjing deliberately set fire at 4: 55, and Zhu Xiaozhen called the police at 5: 04: 35, but Mo Huanjing called the police at 5: 10: 5 1, which was 6 minutes later than Zhu Xiaozhen. Mo Huanjing deliberately lit a book with a lighter, fearing that there was no fire, and went to find other kindling objects, obviously with the intention of deliberately forming a fire. It is common sense that intentional arson seriously endangers public safety. The serious consequences it caused to this case were not unforeseeable, but left it alone knowing that it would cause serious consequences. Therefore, Mo Huanjing's subjective attitude towards the serious consequences caused by this case is not negligence, but laissez-faire. Mo Huanjing and his defenders suggested that Mo Huanjing's subjective appeal reasons and defense opinions on the serious consequences of this case could not be established and would not be adopted.
(3) Whether Mo Huanjing has any rescue behavior. Mo Huanjing called 1 19 at the request of the victim Zhu Xiaozhen. With a hammer, she asked the on-site security guard for help and was taken to the first floor by the security guard. She wanted to go upstairs with the firefighters at the owner's elevator, provide the firefighters with a pass card, contact the relatives of the victim to inform them that there was a fire in the house, and inform some relatives and neighbors of the victim that someone was trapped in the house. It can be concluded that Mo Huanjing had some rescue actions after the fire, but failed to effectively avoid serious problems. Mo Huanjing's excuses about putting out the fire with a bucket in the house, moving sundries outside the nanny's house, pressing the fire alarm outside the nanny's house, and hitting the bathroom glass of the girl's bedroom with a hammer are inconsistent with the evidence in the case. The opinion put forward by the defender that Mo Huanjing pressed the manual alarm at 5: 08 is also inconsistent with the facts reflected in the suppressed transcript.
(4) Whether Mo Huanjing's arson crime constitutes surrender or confession. Although Mo Huanjing called 1 19 at the request of the victim Zhu Xiaozhen after the fire broke out, she only reflected the fact that the fire broke out at the scene to the public security organs, but did not voluntarily admit the fact that she set fire. Moreover, before Mo Huanjing called the police, the victim Zhu Xiaozhen and related personnel had called the police many times, so the original judgment concluded that Mo Huanjing's alarm had no practical value. Although Mo Huanjing fled outside and didn't leave the downstairs of the burning building, according to witness testimony, Mo Huanjing didn't tell others that he set the fire when others asked about the fire, nor did he explain the arson when he was taken to the police station for questioning. Therefore, although he waited downstairs at the scene after the incident, he did not have the subjective will to surrender and did not belong to the scene to wait for surrender. In addition, when the police interrogated Mo Huanjing, they found that she was very nervous. After agreeing and personally entering the gesture password, they checked her use of the mobile phone before committing the crime. After searching and browsing the webpage records such as the spontaneous combustion of the lighter in her mobile phone, they confirmed that she was seriously suspected of committing arson and issued a criminal summons to her on the same day 12: 40. Mo Huanjing only confessed the main criminal facts of arson when the police questioned him, constantly reminding him of his abnormal whereabouts and behavior before the incident, and conducting ideological education. Therefore, the defender's opinion that Mo Huanjing voluntarily confessed that it was illegal for the public security organ to check Mo Huanjing's mobile phone before the public security organ knew the main facts of the arson crime could not be established and was not adopted. However, in view of the fact that Mo Huanjing can account for the crime of arson in interrogation, it can be concluded that he has a frank plot for arson.
(five) whether there is a causal relationship between the public security fire rescue and the serious consequences of this case. If an act that harms society will inevitably lead to harmful results, it can only be considered as the result of the joint action of many factors in criminal law if the intervention of external forces aggravates or promotes the production of such results. The evidence in the case shows that this case does not exist, and Mo Huanjing's arson is the only cause of the consequences of this case. It is the legal duty of the public security fire department to carry out fire rescue, block or reduce fire losses. If it fails to perform its duties, it should bear the responsibility. But from this case, the existing evidence can't confirm this. According to the evidence on file, the public security organs 1 19 Command Center and10 Command Center have received alarms from the victim Zhu Xiaozhen and related personnel since 5: 04 on June 22, 20 17. Hangzhou Public Security Fire Bureau immediately dispatched firefighters and fire engines to the scene at 5: 07, and arrived at the main entrance on the north side of the crime plot at 5: 1 1. Under the guidance of community security, the iron gate was demolished and ran into the ground floor of the burning building. At 5: 00 16, fire fighting and rescue equipment was brought into the burning building. At 5: 30, it was found that the range of the water gun was reduced from 10 meter to less than 2 meters, which could not meet the fire fighting needs. At 5: 36, the fire gradually increased. Firefighters immediately informed the property to check the operation of the fire pump, and pressed the remote control start button of the indoor fire hydrant at 5: 40, but the fire hydrant pump still failed to start in time. After starting the fire hydrant pump at 5: 45, the water pressure still can't meet the fire fighting needs. The fire commander found that the valve of the water pump adapter of the fire hydrant in the community was rusted. On the one hand, he contacted the water supply department to pressurize the municipal water supply pipe network near the incident area. On the other hand, he promptly directed firefighters to lay hoses along the stairs, and completed the hose laying work at 6: 0015 to realize water supply with hoses and gradually control the fire. At about 6: 48, the fire was basically extinguished, and four victims were found by search and rescue and handed over to medical staff. The evidence in the case proves that after the internal attack firefighters entered the fire scene, they simultaneously carried out fire fighting and personnel search and rescue work. In the absence of direct rescue conditions, firefighters must effectively control the fire and create conditions for saving people. Considering the fire environment and building structure of this case, there is no objective condition for internal firefighters to save people first and then put out the fire. Before the search and rescue found the trapped people, the relevant firefighters and property staff gave a negative answer to the inquiries of the relatives of the victims and the people on the spot about whether the trapped people were found in the search and rescue, which is not contradictory to the fact that the four victims were not found by the search and rescue until the end of the fire fighting. The four victims were not discovered until the end of the fire fighting, which was directly related to the fact that the four victims were trapped far away from the entrance and the fire at the scene. Throughout the fire fighting process in this case, the firefighters fulfilled their statutory duties, and the rescue was in line with the regulations, and there were no dereliction of duty, mistakes and delays. The extension of fire rescue time is caused by objective reasons such as insufficient water pressure and rusty valve of water pump adapter. In addition, the evidence in this case also proves that the victim Zhu Xiaozhen called the police three times at 5: 04: 35, 5: 05: 55 and 5: 08: 52 respectively. The total memory shows that the last time Zhu Xiaozhen spoke was 5: 06: 16: 5438+09. I couldn't answer the dispatcher 120 during the call, and I didn't hear the child's voice during the call. It can be inferred that Zhu Xiaozhen and his three children were in a coma at 5: 00+02. At the same time, the fire experts who appeared in court in the first instance explained that the concentration of carbon monoxide in fire smoke can generally reach 4% within 6 to 8 minutes after the fire, and when the concentration of carbon monoxide is 1%, people can be poisoned to death. If the people trapped in the fire can't leave within 6 to 7 minutes, their lives will be in danger. In this case, after the fire, four victims hid in the north bedroom to avoid danger, but the north bedroom only had a narrow floor-to-ceiling glass window that could be pushed outward for more than ten centimeters, and the smoke exhaust and ventilation effect was limited. Therefore, when firefighters put out the fire for the first time, the possibility of four victims surviving is very slim, which is consistent with the conclusion that four victims died of inhaling carbon monoxide in the fire. From the analysis of the time of death of the four victims, it can be seen that the deaths of the four victims were the direct result of Mo Huanjing's intentional arson. At that time, fire rescue could not stop the death. Therefore, the defender's opinion that there is a causal relationship between fire rescue and the consequences of this case, that there are many causes and one effect in this case, and that Mo Huanjing should get the sentencing benefits of reducing criminal responsibility and punishment cannot be established and will not be adopted. Mo Huanjing's appeal reason that the public security fire department did not fully embody the basic principle of "giving priority to ensuring the life safety of people in distress" in the rescue was inconsistent with the ascertained facts, which could not be established and would not be adopted.
(6) Whether the deficiencies in property management can reduce Mo Huanjing's criminal responsibility. The fire investigation report, fire records of the property, photos of the maintenance status of some fire-fighting facilities in the incident community and the testimony of property staff and firefighters prove that the property management unit in the incident community has problems such as inadequate implementation of property fire safety management, insufficient emergency response capacity, and abnormal operation of fire water supply facilities. From the analysis of the death of four victims in this case caused by carbon monoxide poisoning shortly after the fire, it is found that the problems existing in property management such as insufficient water pressure are not substantially related to the death of four victims. Problems in property management led to insufficient water pressure, and the water gun could not be discharged effectively, which objectively prolonged the fire fighting time and was related to the expansion of property losses caused by the fire. However, the lack of property management is a state that existed before Mo Huanjing set fire, not an external intervention factor after Mo Huanjing set fire. There is no multiple causes and one effect between it and the harmful consequences of this case in the sense of criminal law, and it cannot be a legal reason to reduce Mo Huanjing's responsibility for arson. Therefore, the appeal grounds and defense opinions put forward by Mo Huanjing and his defenders cannot be established and will not be adopted.
To sum up, the Zhejiang Higher People's Court held that Mo Huanjing deliberately set fire to a high-rise residential building, causing four deaths and heavy property losses, and his behavior constituted arson. During his work as a live-in nanny, he stole the property of his employer many times, and the amount was huge, which constituted theft. If one of them commits two crimes, he shall be punished for several crimes according to law. Mo Huanjing has surrendered to his theft and can be given a lighter punishment according to law. Mo Huanjing chose to set fire to a high-rise residential building in the early hours of the morning, resulting in four deaths and huge property losses. Although the crime of arson has discretionary mitigating circumstances, the criminal motive is despicable, subjective and vicious, and personal danger is great, causing extremely serious criminal consequences and seriously endangering public safety and society, which is not enough to be given a lighter punishment. Mo Huanjing and his defenders have insufficient reasons to demand a lighter punishment and will not be adopted. The opinion that the procurator in court of Zhejiang Provincial People's Procuratorate suggested rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment was established and adopted. The original conviction and applicable law are correct, and the sentence is appropriate. The trial procedure is legal. Therefore, the aforementioned ruling was made.
Culpable of punishment!
Source: Netease News