Gu Chujun: from beginning to end, there is no objective evidence to prove that I am guilty.

Gu Chujun: from beginning to end, there is no objective evidence to prove that I am guilty.

Original title: the Gu Chujun case will be reopened tomorrow. The website of the supreme law website will be broadcast live.

Gu Chujun, such as the false report of the registered capital, undisclosed and undisclosed information, misappropriation of the case of retrial, will be heard in the first circuit court of the supreme law of Shenzhen on the morning of June 13th.

In June 12th, Gu Chujun told He was busy preparing for the court. He thought he was innocent from beginning to end. "There is no objective evidence to prove that I'm guilty."

In December 28, 2017, the supreme law announced the case of Gu Chujun. In May 18, 2018, the collegial panel summoned the opinions of both sides.

According to CCTV, the case was retrial in June 13th, and the trial will be broadcast live in the Supreme People's court network, the Chinese court open network, the Chinese court network and the Supreme People's court, micro-blog.

Three crimes were sentenced to 10 years

Gu Chujun, the founder of the green Kehr group, owns five listed companies, including Kelon Electric appliances. In May 2005, Kelong electric appliance was put under investigation by the China Securities Regulatory Commission. According to the report of the Securities Daily, the SFC's responsible person said that in January 2005, the state audit office had transferred the CSRC to the CSRC by the CSRC, which had been investigated by the Guangdong securities regulatory bureau.

Subsequently, Gu was arrested. In January 2008, the central court of Foshan, Guangdong, made a decision on the first trial, which was determined by the three charges of illegal disclosure, undisclosure, non disclosure of important information and misappropriation of capital for ten years, and a penalty of 6 million 800 thousand yuan.

It is worth noting that this guilty conviction excludes a major evidence. The verdict indicates that the appraisers can not answer the basic concepts, basic principles and basic contents of some judicial accountants in the court, and indicate that they have done their best in the court, and said that "the professional competence of the judicial appraisal is doubtful, and the judicial review made by the expert is made." The confidence is not high. "

The verdict affirms: "the 22 judicial accounting identification reports provided by the prosecution can not be used as evidence," and "the testimony of the economic loss of the shareholders of the Cologne, which is provided by the prosecution, is not legitimate because the extraction procedure is illegal".

After the verdict of the first instance, Gu made an appeal. In March 25, 2009, the Guangdong High Court made a final ruling and upheld the original verdict.

In an interview with the surging news, he said that economic crime cases need evidence of relevant books, accounting reports, and judicial identification reports. "But the original trial, in addition to some witness testimony, had no objective evidence to prove that I was guilty."

In September 2012, Gu Chu made a complaint to the Supreme People's court after the release of his sentence. In December 10, 2013, the Supreme People's court took the appeal of Gu Jun to the Guangdong high court for examination and treatment. In January 17, 2014, the Guangdong High Court examined the appeals of Gu Xiao Jun. During the examination of the Guangdong high court, Gu Chu continued to lodge a complaint with the Supreme People's court.

The supreme law decides the retrial

In November 2016, the opinion of the State Council of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the protection of property rights in the law of the protection of property rights was issued. The opinion was put forward, "insist on correcting the mistakes and correcting a group of complaints about the strong property rights disputes." It is necessary to correct and compensate the litigants' losses in accordance with the law.

A year later, in December 28, 2017, the supreme law issued the news. Gu reported the registered capital, undisclosed, undisclosed important information and misappropriated the capital case. After the review, the hospital found that it was in conformity with the retrial conditions and decided to try the case by the first circuit court of the supreme law.

The Supreme People's court has considered that the complaint submitted by the defendant, Gu Chujun, is in conformity with the retrial conditions stipulated in the 242nd articles (two) and (three) of the criminal procedure law of the People's Republic of China, and in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of the 243rd article of the criminal procedure law of the People's Republic of China, It is decided to take the case for trial.

The 242nd article (two) and (three) of the criminal procedure law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the evidence of the conviction and sentencing is not true, inadequate, and should be excluded according to law, or that there is a contradiction between the main evidence of the case facts, and the original judgment and adjudication are applicable to the people with the wrong law. The court should be retrial.

In May 18, 2018, the collegial panel of the case organized the two sides to hold a meeting before the first circuit court of the Supreme People's court. The summit of the supreme law said that the pretrial conference mainly listened to the opinions of the two parties in matters such as avoidance, public hearing, illegal evidence exclusion, submitting new evidence materials, applying for reappraisal, applying for witnesses to appear in court, and collecting evidence materials. The Supreme People's Procuratorate and the defendant of the original trial, Gu Chujun and Zhang Hong, submitted new evidence to the court, respectively. Gu Chujun and the defendant, Yan Yousong submitted the list of witnesses to apply for testimony in court respectively, and Gu Chujun also raised the application for the court to collect evidence. The collegial panel displayed the new evidence by one by one, and fully listened to the views of the two parties on the related issues. The collegial panel also combed the evidence of the original judgment to identify the facts of the crime, understood the focus of the two sides of the dispute, and made clear the key point of the trial.

For the specific contents of the above pretrial meetings, in June 12th, Gu Chu accepted the surging news interview, saying that it was not easy to disclose, until the court said.

Editor in responsibility: Huo Yuang

Waonews is a news media from China, with hundreds of translations, rolling updates China News, hoping to get the likes of foreign netizens