Sihai network

What is the result of the second trial of nanny arson on June 5, it was reported that in the early morning of June 22 last year, a fire broke out in Hangzhou's blue Qianjiang community, killing four mothers and children. Mo Huanjing, the nanny, was locked as a suspect of arson. Yesterday (4) at 3 p.m., the Zhejiang Higher People's Court issued a public verdict on the second instance of the "Hangzhou nanny arson case" and ruled to maintain the death sentence of the first instance.

At 3 p.m., Zhejiang Higher People's court publicly adjudicated the case of the defendant Mo Huanjing's arson and theft (appeal) in the first instance of Hangzhou intermediate people's court in the second court of the court. The presiding judge read out the ruling: dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment. That is to say, 'death penalty, deprivation of political rights for life', which is decided by the first trial.

Hearing the judgment of the second instance, Mo Huanjing at the scene of the court had no redundant expression and seemed very calm. Maybe she had already accepted the result of death penalty in her heart. In the trial on May 17, she said that if the second trial upheld the original sentence, she would also accept: 'I have pleaded guilty to the prosecution. '

In the criminal ruling of the second instance, for Mo Huanjing's multiple appeal reasons, such as "no subjective intention" and "the problem of fire property should be the consideration factor to mitigate the penalty", Zhejiang Provincial High Court made a judgment and analysis one by one.

According to Zhejiang Provincial High Court, Mo Huanjing's intention to set fire and then put out the fire to achieve the purpose of borrowing money is enough to prove that Mo Huanjing intended to set fire on purpose; Mo Huanjing thought that the book was not lit and then went to find a newspaper for ignition, reflecting his firm will to set fire. Mo Huanjing is not negligent but indulgent in the serious consequences of this case. Mo Huanjing has certain rescue actions after the fire, but failed to effectively avoid the occurrence of serious consequences. Mo Huanjing only confessed the main criminal facts of the arson when the police interrogated him and educated him. He could not be identified as surrender, but had a frank plot.

At the same time, according to the Zhejiang Provincial High Court, Mo Huanjing chose to set fire in a high-rise house in the early hours of the morning, resulting in four deaths and huge property losses. Although there are some minor circumstances such as confessing and confessing to the crime of setting fire, the criminal motive is despicable, the subjective malignity is deep, the personal danger is great, the criminal consequences are extremely serious, the public safety is seriously endangered, and the social harm is great. However, it is still not serious It's not enough to give it a lighter punishment.

In addition, Zhejiang provincial high court believes that there is no case of failure to perform due diligence in public security fire rescue, and Mo Huanjing's arson behavior is the only reason for the consequences of this case.

Zhejiang high court also believes that there is no substantial relationship between the problems of property management such as insufficient water pressure and the death of four victims. The problems in property management lead to insufficient water pressure, which is related to the expansion of property loss caused by fire. However, the deficiency of property management is the existing state before Mo Huanjing set fire, not the external intervention factors after Mo Huanjing's implementation of the act of setting fire. There is no multiple cause and one effect in the sense of criminal law between the harmful consequences of this case, which cannot be the legal reason to reduce Mo Huanjing's crime of setting fire.

Wu Pengbin, Mo Huanjing's defense lawyer, told reporters after the sentence was pronounced in the second instance that the Zhejiang high court will report Mo Huanjing's death sentence to the Supreme People's court for approval according to law. The Supreme Court will also listen to lawyers and Mo Huanjing when reviewing the death penalty. At that time, he and Tong zongjin will continue to present their views to supreme law.

After the sentencing of the second trial, Lin Shengbin, the victim's family member, posted a photo of the criminal ruling on his microblog, saying: 'what has been pronounced is deserved. Those who have not yet been judged are on their way. On May 21, Lin Shengbin filed a civil lawsuit against 9 units including property management, housekeeping and fire control, with a total claim amount of 130 million yuan.