Recently, Attorney Tang Jianbin of Beijing Juyou Law Firm received the second-instance judgment from the Hunan Provincial Higher People's Court. In the case involving Yi Moumou, who was charged with trafficking, transporting, manufacturing drugs, theft, and money laundering, Attorney Tang achieved significant defense outcomes. Through vigorous advocacy during the trial and thorough communication with the collegial panel judges after the trial, the court adopted key defense arguments. As a result, Yi Moumou's sentence was commuted from immediate execution to a suspended death sentence.

This case involved multiple defendants, with Yi Moumou being the second defendant. The first-instance court found that Yi Moumou had conspired with other defendants to purchase and transport 31 kilograms of methamphetamine from Yunnan Province for sale. Additionally, the court found that Yi Moumou had attempted to manufacture methamphetamine with other defendants but failed, and had stolen, transported, and sold 5 kilograms of ketamine. The first-instance judgment found Yi Moumou guilty of trafficking, transporting, and manufacturing drugs, theft, and money laundering, and sentenced him to death with immediate execution.

After the first-instance judgment, Attorney Tang Jianbin accepted the commission to serve as the second-instance defense counsel for defendant Yi Moumou. Based on a thorough review of the case, Attorney Tang Jianbin argued that the trafficking of 5 kilograms of ketamine was insufficient to warrant the death penalty with immediate execution, the attempted manufacturing of drugs in this case was also insufficient to warrant the death penalty, and the primary criminal act warranting the death penalty in this case was the trafficking and transportation of 32 kilograms of methamphetamine. However, no physical evidence of this batch of methamphetamine was seized, and sentencing for this act alone was also insufficient to warrant the death penalty. Based on the criminal policy of strictly controlling the application of the death penalty, the maximum sentence that could be imposed for the entire case was one death sentence. The first-instance court simultaneously sentenced the first defendant Tang Mou, the second defendant Yi Moumou, and the third defendant Chen Mou to immediate execution of the death penalty, which is clearly excessive in sentencing. In the joint criminal activities involving multiple defendants such as Tang Mou, Yi Moumou, and Chen Mou, Yi Moumou contributed less capital and profited less than the first defendant. Yi Moumou was not responsible for the core aspects of drug trafficking, such as contacting upstream sellers or downstream buyers, but only handled transportation and storage of the drugs. His role and influence in the joint criminal activities were relatively minor, insufficient to warrant the death penalty.

Ultimately, the appellate court adopted the defense argument presented by Attorney Tang Jianbin that Yi Moumou played a relatively minor role in the joint criminal activity, and commuted Yi Moumou's sentence from immediate execution of the death penalty to a two-year reprieve. This partial modification of the sentence reflects the judicial spirit of strictly controlling the application of the death penalty as outlined in the “Kunming Meeting Minutes,” and holds significant reference value for cases involving joint drug crimes and multi-tiered transaction relationships where multiple defendants are sentenced to death.