Recently, the Beijing Fangshan District People’s Court issued a first-instance judgment in the case of Defendant S, who was charged with the crime of organizing a group for lewd acts, which was handled by a legal team led by Attorney Feng Yunqin of our firm. The court accepted the defense counsel’s primary arguments and the prosecution’s sentencing recommendations, finding Defendant S guilty of organizing a group for lewd acts and sentencing him to one year of fixed-term imprisonment. Shortly after the judgment took effect, Defendant S was released upon completion of his sentence. The handling of this case precisely exemplifies the “cost-effective” nature of defense work: following the judgment’s entry into force, the defendant was no longer subject to prolonged detention, thereby maximizing the realization of the value of personal liberty.
I. Case Challenges: Evidentiary Dilemmas and Family Circumstances
At the time of retaining counsel, the defendant was already under criminal detention. According to Article 301 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, the crime of gathering a crowd for lewd acts is punishable by fixed-term imprisonment of up to five years, criminal detention, or public surveillance. In this case, multiple pieces of evidence implicated the defendant as the ringleader, involving repeated acts of organization, which would result in a relatively severe sentence. At the same time, the client’s family circumstances were unique: his father was critically ill, his mother was elderly, and his son was a minor. Regaining freedom as soon as possible to see his father one last time before his passing became the client’s most urgent need.
II. Defense Strategy: A Step-by-Step Approach from “Not Guilty” to
“No Prosecution Due to Reasonable Doubt” and Finally to “Reimbursement of Actual Expenses”
Based on the case’s progress, the evidence, and the defendant’s core demands, the defense counsel implemented clear, phased strategic adjustments and advancements:
(1) Initial Stance: Vigorously Seeking Acquittal or Non-Prosecution Due to Reasonable Doubt
According to legal regulations, the elements of the crime of organizing group sexual misconduct require that the perpetrator have organized, planned, directed, or participated multiple times in such activities. After multiple meetings with the client and a thorough review of the case files, the defense counsel identified significant flaws in the evidence on record. In this case, the client had participated in the activities fewer than three times, and the evidence was insufficient to conclusively and fully prove that the client was an organizer. The client’s actions constituted a public order violation rather than a criminal offense, leaving room to argue for an “acquittal” or “no prosecution due to reasonable doubt.” Consequently, the defense counsel submitted multiple documents to the investigative authorities and the procuratorate, including an “Application for Release on Bail,” a “Legal Opinion Recommending Against Approval of Arrest,” an “Application for Review of the Necessity of Detention,” and a “Legal Opinion Recommending a Decision of Non-Prosecution.” The defense consistently highlighted evidentiary issues to the investigating authorities, striving to secure an acquittal or a non-custodial disposition for the client. After the case was returned twice for supplementary investigation, no substantive new evidence was added, and the defense counsel’s relevant opinions were not adopted; the application for bail pending trial was unsuccessful. The defense counsel preliminarily assessed that if the “not guilty” defense strategy were continued during the court trial phase, the client would face the risk of an indeterminate prison sentence should the defense arguments not be accepted by the court—a scenario that would run counter to the client’s core demand for “early release.”
(2) Strategy Adjustment: Shifting to Precise Sentencing Negotiations Based on “Actual Offenses”
Having failed to achieve a breakthrough during both the investigation and prosecution review phases, the defense counsel assessed the situation and, after thorough consultation with the client, promptly adjusted the core defense strategy from “not guilty” or “non-prosecution due to reasonable doubt” to a defense strategy aimed at securing a lighter sentence with a “fixed-term” prison sentence. To this end, the defense counsel engaged in multiple rounds of in-depth, professional discussions with the prosecutor, detailing the issues with the case evidence and the special hardships faced by the client’s family. The defense counsel’s persistent communication and professional insights ultimately earned high recognition from the prosecutor. After multiple rounds of negotiations, the prosecutor proposed that if the client voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted the penalty, a sentencing recommendation of “one year of fixed-term imprisonment” could be issued. This would fulfill the client’s core demand for “early release” and ensure that the sentence was served in full. After the defense counsel fully explained the legal consequences and strategic considerations to the client—namely, the choice between “maintaining a not-guilty plea but facing an indefinite detention period” and “pleading guilty and accepting punishment but regaining immediate freedom”—the client ultimately, based on the practical need to “regain freedom as soon as possible to see his father one last time,” voluntarily signed the “Statement of Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Punishment.”
(3) Unwavering Efforts: Humanitarian Concern Throughout
Even after the sentencing negotiation plan was finalized and the Statement of Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Punishment was signed, the defense counsel did not abandon any possible humanitarian efforts. Once the case entered the trial phase, in response to the emergency situation of the client’s father falling critically ill again, the defense counsel submitted an Application for Release on Bail to the court prior to the hearing, earnestly appealing to the court to show compassion for the client’s human desire “to see his father one last time and avoid lifelong regret.” The presiding judge responded immediately. While expressing emotional understanding, the judge could not grant bail due to the nature of the case and practical operational difficulties, especially since the defendant was about to complete his sentence and be released. Although the defense counsel’s last-minute effort was unsuccessful, it fully demonstrated their deep concern for human compassion and humanity while pursuing legal outcomes, striving to achieve the best possible social effect within the established legal framework.
III. Defense Outcome: Serving the Full Sentence and Regaining Freedom
Through the aforementioned tireless efforts, the defense counsel’s professional work achieved a critical result: through effective communication during the prosecution review phase, the procuratorate issued an extremely lenient sentencing recommendation of one year’s imprisonment; Through effective defense during the trial phase, despite the existence of incriminating evidence against Client S, the court ultimately fully adopted the procuratorate’s sentencing recommendation and sentenced Client S to a fixed-term imprisonment. This sentence was largely offset by the time already served in custody, achieving the optimal outcome of “time served.” At the time of the judgment, the client was nearing the end of his sentence, and he was ultimately released shortly after the judgment took effect, fulfilling his wish to return to his family as soon as possible.
IV. Conclusion and Reflections
The resolution of this case serves as a classic example of criminal defense seeking to maximize the client’s interests within practical constraints. Faced with evidentiary flaws and judicial realities, the defense counsel did not rigidly adhere to a single strategy. Instead, within the framework permitted by law, the counsel communicated fully with the client and adjusted the approach flexibly, shifting from the ideal goal of “pursuing an acquittal” to the practical optimal solution of “offset against time served,” thereby helping the client regain freedom and return to his family as soon as possible.
Furthermore, this case prompts reflection on the nature of the crime of “group indecency” itself. The legal interest primarily protected by this offense is social morality; its specific social harm is relatively abstract and limited, and it pertains more to the realm of personal morality. Against the backdrop of diverse values in modern society, the necessity and boundaries of state intervention in such acts—which primarily concern private morality—remain subjects of ongoing debate within both legal theory and practice. Defense work is not merely about winning or losing individual cases; it also involves using professional practice to encourage the judiciary to exercise its punitive authority with greater prudence. King&Capital Law Firm has always adhered to the philosophy of “pursuing excellence and living up to the trust placed in us.” We are committed to securing the best possible outcomes for our clients within the existing legal framework, while also maintaining a continuous inquiry into the essence of law, its social impact, and the spirit of humanism.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
