A major labor safety accident case with 6 deaths, the prosecutor's sentencing recommendation was 5 years and 6 months, and after successful defense by lawyers, the court finally sentenced to 2 years and 3 months.
Brief description of the case
He is a bag accessories manufacturing limited company (hereinafter referred to as "the company") of the legal representative, the company will carry out bag accessories electroplating processing of the second workshop rented to Lin responsible for the production and operation, Lin used the company's relevant procedures in the name of the company for electroplating production and processing and accept He management.
The second workshop used copper sulfate, nickel sulfate and other hazardous materials in the production process, but the workshop and the staff dormitory were in the same building (the dormitory was on the upper floor of the workshop), and did not maintain a safe distance from the staff dormitory.2021 In July of this workshop, the equipment frequently appeared to be short-circuited by the line ignition phenomenon, and Lin failed to rectify the situation, and the local government's safety supervision department had inspected the workshop and made an order to rectify the situation, which was not timely and effectively rectified by He Mou, Lin Mou, and others.2021 The second workshop was rented to the company for production and operation. The workshop caught fire on a certain day in July 2021, causing six people resting in the upstairs dormitory of the workshop to be burned to death and one person to be burned.
Facts identified in the Accident Investigation Team's "Fire Accident Investigation Report":
1. the direct cause of the accident: the second workshop hanging plating sub-area de-plating process production, in violation of the relevant provisions, did not open the environmental protection ventilation purification device, the hydrogen produced in the workshop southwest of the gas collection cover, the formation of explosive gas mixtures, meet the switching box in the electrical appliances between the phases, the relative ground of the insulation between the breakdown of the discharge of the sparks occurring deflagration, the ignition of the surrounding combustible material followed by the occurrence of a fire.
2. Indirect causes of the accident: (1) the second workshop in the north of the second floor with staff dormitories, employees and their families living in long-term, not set up fire separation, is a "three-in-one" place, is an important factor in the occurrence of the fire; (2) plant setup and building materials do not meet the requirements of the fire-resistant grade, the second workshop hanging plating partition of the collector, exhaust pipe and air supply pipe using materials not in line with the fire-resistant grade requirements, the second workshop hanging plating partition of the collector, exhaust pipe and air supply pipe material is not suitable for the fire. The materials used in the collecting hood, exhaust pipe and air supply pipe of the hanging plating sub-district do not meet the fire resistance requirements, the electrical selection and installation of the hanging plating sub-district do not meet the anti-corrosion requirements, and the electrical selection and installation are not standardized, and the environment has corrosive gases and is humid, which results in the reduction of the degree of local insulation, and becomes a weak point of breakdown; (3) The collecting hood, exhaust pipe and air supply pipe of the hanging plating sub-district of the second workshop do not use fire-retardant materials, and do not comply with the "Code for Fire Protection of Architectural Design"; (4) Lack of safety system; (6) Lack of safety education and training; (7) Lack of hidden danger investigation and management.
3. The nature of the accident: a large production safety liability accident caused by the non-compliance of electrical equipment and structures with the design specifications, the illegal operation of employees, the illegal setting of employee dormitories in the plant, and the lack of safety management.
Focus of Disputes and Defense Ideas
The basic facts of this case are not much in dispute, the focus of the dispute mainly lies in the role of Mr. He in the accident, whether it constitutes a surrender, and whether it can be sentenced to less than three years of imprisonment.
1. The role of He and his company in the accident
The prosecution argued that He was the main person in charge of the company's safety production, and Lin was mainly responsible for the accident.
The lawyer's main defense idea:
The responsibility of He Mou, as recognized in the Fire Accident Investigation Report, was an indirect cause of the accident; the lack of investigation and management of hidden dangers was mainly the responsibility of Lin Mou; and it was found that the company's safety system and the lack of safety education and training were untrue.
He mou in the accident responsibility is very small, because according to the lease contract with Lin mou, safety production by Lin mou is responsible for; According to the actual situation, require He mou management of the second workshop reluctantly; He mou basically fulfill the legal representative of the management obligations.
He is an accessory. Because the direct cause of the accident is LinMou; The indirect cause of the company also has LinMou's responsibility; HeMou in this accident is not directly responsible, but indirectly responsible. Direct responsibility refers to the behavior of the perpetrator and the accident has a direct and inevitable causal relationship, is a decisive factor in the occurrence of the consequences of the accident. Indirect liability refers to the behavior of the perpetrator and the consequences of the accident has an indirect connection, but no necessary causal relationship, is the condition of causing significant losses, is not a decisive factor. He as the company's legal representative is only management is not in place, and the accident has no necessary causal relationship. Article 27 of the criminal law stipulates that "those who play a secondary or auxiliary role in a joint crime are accomplices." According to the "two high" of the "sentencing guidelines (for trial)", for the accessory, taking into account their status and role in the comprehensive consideration, should be lenient punishment, reduce the base sentence of 20%-50%.
The lawyer also provided relevant evidence.
2. As to whether He Mou constituted a surrender
Since He did not voluntarily surrender to the public security authorities after the accident, nor did he surrender by telephone, the public security authorities' "Notes on Arrest" stated that He was "verbally summoned to the case". In practice, the telephone summons to the case is generally recognized as automatic surrender, oral summons to the case is generally not recognized as automatic surrender, so the public security organs of the indictment and the procuratorial organs of the indictment, as well as the trial prosecutor's statement denied that He belongs to the surrender.
The main opinion of the defense:
After the incident, He and others dialed 119, and He rushed to the scene in time, while commanding the scene while waiting for the fire department, after the police station police rushed to the scene to take He away. He's behavior belongs to the crime after the initiative to report, also belongs to know others report and stay at the scene to cooperate with the arrest of the situation. The details of the case through the questioning let He Mou made a detailed explanation, including did not call 110 because it is considered to call 119 also belongs to the report.
The Supreme Court announced in December 2010, "on the treatment of self-surrender and merit of a number of specific issues of the opinion" Article 1, "1. After the crime took the initiative to report the crime, although did not indicate that he was the perpetrator, but did not flee the scene, in the judicial organs when questioned to explain their own crimes; 2. Knowing that other people to report the crime and wait at the scene, arrest without resisting arrest, confessed to the facts of the crime "is regarded as voluntary surrender.
After arriving at the case, He Haixia truthfully confessed the main facts of the case (without admitting guilt.) Article 1 of the 1998 Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of the Law in Dealing with Self-Surrender and Merits stipulates, "Truthfully confessing one's own crime refers to the fact that after a suspect automatically surrenders himself to the police, he truthfully gives an account of his own main facts of the crime." Moreover, as long as the truthful confession of the "objective facts" can be, as for the "subjective psychology" regardless, because this belongs to the nature of the behavior of the defense.
At the same time, the defense provided similar cases.
In the end, the judgment found that He constitutes the surrender.
3. Whether to impose a prison sentence of less than three years
Article 135 of the Criminal Law stipulates that if the production safety facilities or production safety conditions do not comply with the state regulations, and as a result, a major casualty accident occurs or other serious consequences are caused, the directly responsible person in charge and other directly responsible persons shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 3 years or criminal detention; if the circumstances are particularly bad, the person shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more than 7 years. According to the "two high" "on the handling of criminal cases of endangering the production safety of the interpretation of the law on a number of issues" article 7, causing the death of more than 3 people that is particularly bad circumstances, that is, this case should be applied to 3-7 years of imprisonment, so the prosecution's sentencing recommendation is 5 years and 6 months.
The defense argued that He was less responsible, an accessory to the crime, a self-reported offender, less serious circumstances, and consideration of business development, and provided 10 case studies to argue that the sentence could be less than 3 years. In the end, although the judgment did not find that He was an accessory, it did find that he was less responsible and imposed a mitigating sentence (the other defendants were mitigated) when several of the other defendants constituted surrenders.
Lesson
It is saddening to see that a labor safety accident caused six fresh lives to disappear in an instant! Moreover, all six defendants in this case were held criminally liable, and more than 10 administrative agencies were given administrative sanctions for inadequate supervision. This case shows once again that safety is not a trivial matter, and that only when the alarm bells are ringing can we have a peaceful life and a healthy society!
