Recently, King&Capital Law Firm lawyers Liu Chang and Zhu Kun handled a case in which a public official was suspected to have committed the crime of favoritism and perverting the law. The public official, Yang Mou, and three other defendants, were accused of the crime of favoritism and perverting the law, and belong to the common crime. In the trial, two defendants voluntarily pleaded guilty and admitted punishment. In the end, the first instance verdict found the case guilty of the crime of bending the law, and the two defendants who pleaded guilty to the crime were accomplices, while Yang and the other defendant were the main offenders.

At the second trial stage, after reading the documents and meeting with the defendants, Mr. Liu Chang and Mr. Zhu Kun believe that the first trial verdict found that the facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient. The existing evidence in this case is not sufficient to conclude that Yang constitutes the crime of favoritism. The main reasons are: (1) the existing evidence is not sufficient to find Yang in the process of handling, there is “do not take coercive measures in a timely manner” behavior; (2) Yang involved in the case, and not by the family of the suspect's “entrusted”; (3) Yang involved in handling the case (3) Yang's participation in the case, the case process in line with the legal process; (4) Yang did not participate in the case due to work arrangements, should not be responsible for the later possible existence of “favoritism”; (5) the case was shelved in the later period of time has nothing to do with Yang; (6) the suspect has not been prosecuted (and then prosecuted) is because of the victim to change the statement (7) Yang and the two defendants who pleaded guilty and accepted the punishment, there is no meaning contact of accomplice, and it is not a common crime. During the trial, Mr. Liu Chang fully elaborated the above defense views and reasons to the panel, and finally the court of second instance adopted the defense views of Mr. Liu Chang, and ruled to revoke the judgment of the first instance, and remanded the case for retrial. After the trial, the defendant and his family expressed their recognition and gratitude to Mr. Liu Chang for his work attitude and ability.

Under the existing system of “pleading guilty and accepting punishment”, many defendants choose to plead guilty and accept punishment in order to fight for “leniency”. Especially in joint criminal cases, some defendants plead guilty and accept punishment, which will make the defense of the defendant who “maintains innocence” more difficult. At this time, it is necessary to firmly believe in the innocence of the defendant, and to provide professional legal services for the defendant in a responsible manner, so as to maximize the protection of the defendant's legitimate rights and interests.