Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released four typical cases regarding the protection of private enterprise property rights and entrepreneurs' rights, emphasizing the precise unification of fact recognition and legal application through retrial procedures, responding to the legal expectations of market entities [1] Group 1: Correction of Criminal Charges Related to Registered Capital - The retrial of a case involving false reporting of registered capital led to the correction of wrongful charges, maintaining the conviction for other crimes while declaring the defendant not guilty of falsely reporting registered capital [2][4] - The case highlighted the shift from "paid registration system" to "subscribed registration system" in company law, which influenced the legal applicability in the retrial [4][3] - The retrial demonstrated the judicial system's commitment to the principle of legality, ensuring that criminal charges are accurately defined and that the rights of private enterprises and entrepreneurs are protected [4][8] Group 2: Distinction Between Economic Disputes and Criminal Offenses - The retrial cases involving contract fraud and embezzlement emphasized the need to distinguish between economic disputes and criminal offenses, ensuring that criminal charges are not applied to mere contractual disagreements [5][6] - The courts focused on whether the defendants had the subjective intent to illegally possess others' property, which is a core element of contract fraud [6][8] - The retrial rulings reinforced the principle of judicial restraint in criminal law, ensuring that economic disputes are resolved without resorting to criminal charges unless clearly warranted [8] Group 3: Equal Protection in Share Transfer Disputes - A significant case involving a share transfer dispute worth over 3.262 billion highlighted the importance of equal protection in property rights, with the retrial correcting previous misinterpretations of contractual obligations [9][10] - The retrial clarified that the conditions for share transfer were not fixed and could evolve based on subsequent agreements and government actions, ensuring that the rights of private entrepreneurs were upheld [10][11] - The ruling served as a strong legal signal to support private enterprises, allowing them to operate with confidence and contributing to the high-quality development of the economy [11]