In a case where the defendant did not opt for a plea bargain, the trial court ultimately rejected the prosecution's sentencing recommendation of six years' imprisonment. This undoubtedly represents a pivotal defense victory. Yet for us, the significance of this judgment extends far beyond the reduced sentence—it stands as a profound demonstration of the value of due process.
Recently, attorneys Xu Wei and He Shunqi of King&Capital Law Firm, in a major case involving “production and sale of counterfeit products” transferred from a provincial-level market supervision bureau, successfully persuaded the court to issue a sentence independent of the prosecution's recommendation through a professional defense that was well-reasoned, advantageous, and measured. This case profoundly illustrates the core role of criminal defense in upholding judicial fairness.
I. Under Heavy Pressure: A Major Case Transfer and an “Ironclad” Sentencing Recommendation
From the outset, the defense work in this case faced immense challenges and pressure:
High-Level Transfer Context: Directly transferred by the provincial-level market supervision authority, the case's characterization and outcome were subject to scrutiny from multiple parties, imposing exceptionally high demands on the defense.
Severe Sentencing Recommendation: Prosecutors indicted the defendant for “producing and selling counterfeit products,” alleging sales of just over 500,000 yuan but demanding a six-year prison sentence—a severe recommendation based on this figure.
Passive Defense Position: During the prosecution review stage, communication between defense counsel and prosecutors became deadlocked. The prosecution repeatedly revised its estimated crime amount, preventing the defense from reaching consensus through pre-trial negotiations. The defendant ultimately declined to plead guilty and accept sentencing recommendations, leaving the defense to stake its case on a head-on confrontation in court.
II. “Hair-splitting Precision”: A Professional Breakthrough with Reason, Advantage, and Restraint
Facing immense pressure, attorneys Xu Wei and He Shunqi demonstrated the utmost professionalism. They firmly believed that even the most seemingly “ironclad” charges could reveal cracks under meticulous scrutiny of details. The defense team established a strategy centered on “scrutinizing the amount of the alleged crime down to the last detail.” Through multiple legal briefs submitted to the court and systematic challenges during trial arguments, they comprehensively contested the prosecution's allegations:
(1) The Valuation Debate: Separate the Qualified Components!
This was the decisive factor in the defense's success. Through analysis of key evidence like product quotations, the defense team convincingly demonstrated that the fire-rated doors and windows in question consisted of “fire-rated frames” (qualified components) and “substandard glass” (substandard components), which could be clearly distinguished in both quotations and costs. Including the value of qualified components in the “production and sale of substandard products” crime's total sales amount not only violated the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment but also constituted a misapplication of the law. The defense insisted that each transaction required “surgical precision” to completely separate and exclude the value of the compliant components.
(2) The Area Debate: Every Square Foot Must Be Verified!
The legal team did not stop at debating valuation principles but delved deeper into the execution details of each project. Through meticulous cross-referencing of the defendant's WeChat chat records and project blueprints, the lawyers astutely identified instances where, due to on-site construction constraints, not all substandard glass specified in the contract was actually replaced. The defense pointed out these “overlooked corners” one by one, arguing that the quantity of substandard products actually installed should serve as the basis for calculation—not the blanket contract area. This factual challenge once again compressed the erroneously determined criminal amount.
(3) Distinguishing Principal from Accessory: Clarifying Responsibility Ensures Just Punishment!
The defense emphasized that although Mr. Li served as the company's vice president, he was neither the actual controller nor the primary beneficiary of its profits. His role and influence in the joint criminal activity were subordinate to the principal offender, and he had not directly participated in decision-making for some of the criminal acts. The defense therefore argued that strict differentiation between principal and accessory offenders is essential. As an accessory, Mr. Li should receive a reduced sentence in accordance with the law, ensuring his punishment aligns with his role in the crime.
(IV) Mitigating Circumstances: Voluntary Reporting Demonstrates Remorse!
Beyond legal arguments, the defense emphasized that the case was uncovered through Mr. Li's voluntary reporting. Although this act did not meet all statutory requirements for “meritorious service” and thus was not formally recognized, the defense argued that his voluntary disclosure to regulatory authorities demonstrated profound remorse, effectively prevented further harm, conserved judicial resources, and held significant social value. It should be fully considered as a crucial mitigating factor during sentencing.
III. A “Victory” with a Touch of Regret
In January 2026, the court issued its first-instance judgment. This weighty verdict served as the best response to the meticulous defense strategy employed by the King&Capital Law Firm.
The court ultimately adopted key arguments presented by the defense: recognizing the defendant as an accessory, acknowledging the mitigating value of his reporting actions, and excluding certain sales amounts based on submitted evidence. Crucially, despite the defendant's refusal to plead guilty and accept punishment, the panel ultimately rejected the prosecution's six-year sentencing recommendation. Instead, it imposed a reduced sentence of four years and six months on Mr. Li.
Yet we must acknowledge this outcome remains disappointing. The four-year-and-six-month sentence falls significantly short of the reasonable judgment we calculated based on the precise amount of the crime. Yet we recognize more clearly that within current judicial practice—especially in cases where defendants do not plead guilty and accept penalties—the court's ability to withstand pressure and render a judgment independent of the prosecution's sentencing recommendation constitutes a rare and valuable victory in itself. It eloquently demonstrates that the courtroom is a place for reasoned argument, and that effective defense can and should exert substantive influence on verdicts.
A Lawyer's Reflection
In cases involving “production and sale of counterfeit or substandard products,” the determination of the crime amount often becomes the focal point of negotiation between prosecution and defense. As defense attorneys, we must adopt a meticulous professional approach, leaving no detail unchecked that could potentially influence the amount's assessment. For we understand that every increment or decrement of a figure in court directly impacts the length of our client's freedom.
More importantly, the value of defense counsel lies not only in pursuing an ideal outcome but in safeguarding procedural fairness. Through reasoned, advantageous, and measured communication and advocacy, we ensure the court remains a venue where defense arguments are fully heard and judgments are made independently. This itself represents the greatest protection of our clients' rights and the highest tribute to the spirit of the rule of law. Though the final outcome of this defense is regrettable, the procedural integrity demonstrated throughout the process will inspire us to continue being meticulous in every future case—to fight for the manifestation of legal principles and procedural justice.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
