展示拿事牛辆加达性能,치晓牛辆川达 性能突出;其在景德镇学习生活多年, 知晓昌江大道属于城市主干道且有限速 规定,案发时又正值节假日晚高峰,应 当认识到在人流车流密集的城市主干道 上严重超速行驶的重大危险。廖某宇超 速行驶后不顾同乘人员劝阻仍持续加 速,在看见被害人后虽采取了紧急制动 和打方向盘的避让措施,但因车速极 快,客观上已无法避免危害后果的发 生。因此,自严重超速驾驶之时起,廖 某宇主观上对公共安全即持不管不顾的 放任心态,属于间接故意,而非过失心 态。其后续采取的踩刹车、打方向、报 警行为不影响其严重超速驾驶时主观心 态的认定。 其二,廖某宇于节假日晚高峰在城市 主干道严重超速驾驶的行为,对公共安 全形成严重威胁和现实危险,危险程度 极高且无法有效控制,不特定社会公众 转自：法治日报 三、被告人廖某宇是否具有自首情 节? 答: 根据刑法及有关司法解释的规 定,犯罪嫌疑人自动投案后如实交代自 己的主要犯罪事实的,是自首。本案案 发后,廖某宇及时拨打了急救和报警电 话并一直在现场等候处理,其被控制时 亦未反抗和逃避,属于自动投案;到案 后如实交代了其驾车持续超速行驶并撞 死被害人的主要犯罪事实,依法构成 ...

央视网消息：据"瓷都审判"公众号消息，1月9日，江西省景德镇市中级人民法院对被告人廖某宇以危险方法危害公共安全案一审公开宣判。法院发布 关于廖某宇案的判后答疑： 其一,廖某宇案发前曾驾驶肇事车辆 从广州经南昌至景德镇,曾有意向朋友 展示肇事车辆加速性能,知晓车辆加速 性能突出;其在景德镇学习生活多年, 知晓昌江大道属于城市主干道且有限速 规定,案发时又正值节假日晚高峰,应 当认识到在人流车流密集的城市主干道 上严重超速行驶的重大危险。廖某宇超 速行驶后不顾同乘人员劝阻仍持续加 速,在看见被害人后虽采取了紧急制动 和打方向盘的避让措施,但因车速极 快,客观上已无法避免危害后果的发 生。因此,自严重超速驾驶之时起,廖 某宇主观上对公共安全即持不管不顾的 放任心态,属于间接故意,而非过失心 态。其后续采取的踩刹车、打方向、报 警行为不影响其严重超速驾驶时主观心 态的认定。 本案案发前,廖某宇与被害人素不相 识,也不存在矛盾纠纷,主观上不具有 积极追求被害人死亡的动机;案发时, 廖某宇系因生活琐事与孙某某发生争执 致心情烦躁而超速驾驶，在看见被害人 后采取了紧急制动和打方向盘的避让措 施;案发后,廖某宇及时拨打了急救 ...

12月20日，成都27岁女子王紫雅家门口被杀案一审宣判，成都市中级人民法院判处被告人梁萌萌（化 名）死刑，缓期两年执行，剥夺政治权利终身。该案社会关注度极高，法院何以作出死缓判决？一审判 决书做出了详细解析。 其辩护人还表示梁萌萌随身带刀是为了防身，并在头部被砸伤后才实施反击，即便其行为构成犯罪也应 从轻或减轻处罚。同时，案发后有自首情节。 但一审判决对梁萌萌"限制刑事责任能力人"之外的辩护理由均未采纳，认为梁萌萌长期携带刀具，对同 小区其他住户进行敲门滋扰，具有极大人身危险性和社会危害性。在王紫雅家外敲门、吐痰，对王紫雅 住宅安宁权造成不法侵害。即便在冲突中"王紫雅拿摆件击打对方，也系为避免对方伤害的自保行为"， 梁萌萌不应当认定为正当防卫。且"梁萌萌客观上违法逃脱，其归案后否认犯罪，不符合自首的构成要 件"，不应认定为自首。 出现在家门口的"怪异"女子 王紫雅母亲说，紫雅是独生女，性情开朗、健康活泼，从小学习成绩优异。丈夫10多年前去世了。多年 来，母亲和女儿相依为命，但王紫雅懂事，很少让母亲操心。 一审判决书中，王紫雅母亲的证言显示：2024年6月9日，事发当天上午她都和女儿在郫都区中航城的家 中。中午 ...

2025年12月20日，四川省成都市中级人民法院一审公开宣判被告人梁某滢故意杀人一案，对 被告人梁某滢以故意杀人罪判处死刑，缓期二年执行，剥夺政治权利终身。 法院经审理查明：被告人梁某滢在成都市郫都区某小区居住期间，经常无故与家人吵闹、摔打 物品、对同小区其他住户进行敲门滋扰，住户曾因此与其发生争执而报警，民警处置后要求梁 某滢家人对其严格管理。2024年6月9日，梁某滢再次在上述小区对其他住户进行敲门滋扰，在 敲击被害人王某雅家房门时，王某雅通过"猫眼"看到梁某滢在其家门口吐痰，遂通过其母联系 小区保安到场处理。小区保安到场劝离时，王某雅打开房门质问梁某滢，二人随即发生争吵， 进而在进门处抓扯、打斗。其间，梁某滢使用随身携带的刀具捅刺、切划王某雅左胸部、头面 部等处，王某雅拿起门厅鞋柜上一中空摆件击打梁某滢头面部，保安上前制止无果。打斗中， 王某雅受伤倒地，保安拨打电话报警，王某雅经抢救无效死亡。经鉴定，王某雅系被他人用单 刃锐器刺击左胸部导致左肺破裂致急性大失血死亡；梁某滢右侧鼻骨及上颌骨额突骨折构成轻 伤二级；梁某滢患有精神分裂症，对其2024年6月9日的违法行为评定为部分刑事责任能力。 四川省成都市中 ...

转自：法治日报 关于被告人梁某滢故意杀人案的说明 一、关于被告人梁某滢行为定性的问题 被告人梁某滢多次对同小区其他住户进行敲门滋扰，本案中又无故在王某雅家外敲门、吐痰，侵害了王 某雅住宅安宁权。王某雅在母亲提醒并电话通知保安到场的情况下开门质问，梁某滢对此不满，与王某 雅发生争吵，进而在进门处抓扯打斗。冲突中梁某滢持刀捅刺，造成王某雅死亡，其行为已构成故意杀 人罪。 三、关于被告人梁某滢作案时系限制刑事责任能力人的问题 被告人梁某滢所住小区多名住户的证言和微信群聊天记录、梁某滢2024年1月至案发时的电话和微信记 录、2024年2月梁某滢父亲拨打120电话录音均证实，梁某滢作案前存在精神异常。2023年8月因梁某滢 敲门滋扰其他住户，双方报警后，民警的出警记录证实，梁某滢的行为异于常人，可能存在精神问题， 民警要求其父母严格管理。王某雅母亲案发当天与王某雅的微信聊天记录及案发后的证言反映，其也认 为梁某滢精神异常，提醒王某雅不要开门。公安机关依照《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》等相关规定， 委托鉴定机构对梁某滢进行了法医精神病学鉴定。本案鉴定机构经法定机关审核取得《司法鉴定许可 证》，鉴定人员均取得法医精神病执业 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case involves the investigation and prosecution of Shi for bribery and illegal business operations, highlighting the misuse of public office for personal gain and the legal implications of such actions [5][8][23]. Group 1: Case Background - Shi held multiple positions in a state-owned real estate development company, utilizing his role to facilitate business for others while receiving bribes totaling over 2.44 million yuan [5][23]. - A specific incident involved Shi receiving a property worth 793,000 yuan as a bribe, which was later sold by his son for 2.7 million yuan, raising questions about the proper assessment of the bribe amount [9][11]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The investigation began in January 2022, leading to Shi's detention and subsequent charges of bribery and illegal business operations [7][8]. - In March 2023, the court sentenced Shi to six years in prison and imposed fines totaling 550,000 yuan for his crimes, which included both bribery and illegal business activities [8][24]. Group 3: Legal Interpretations - The court determined that the bribe amount should be based on the market value of the property at the time of receipt, rather than the sale price, establishing a precedent for similar cases [11][12]. - The actions of Shi and his co-conspirators were classified as illegal business operations, as they exploited their positions to divert projects from the state-owned company to a private entity, resulting in significant illegal profits [12][13][20]. Group 4: Sentencing Considerations - The court considered mitigating factors such as Shi's confession and cooperation with the investigation, which influenced the final sentencing decision [22][24]. - The ruling emphasized the importance of accountability for public officials and the legal consequences of corruption within state-owned enterprises [23][24].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves a former hospital executive, referred to as "甲," who engaged in corrupt practices, including accepting bribes and misusing his position to benefit others, leading to significant legal consequences [4][5][10]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - "甲" held multiple senior positions at a public hospital and violated organizational discipline by accepting a bribe of 10,000 yuan from a subordinate, "乙," in exchange for helping "乙's" daughter secure a job, which he ultimately failed to do [4][5]. - Over the years, "甲" received over 4.75 million yuan in bribes while leveraging his authority in procurement and project contracts [5][10]. Investigation Process - The investigation began on May 10, 2024, leading to "甲" being placed under detention on May 13, 2024, and subsequently expelled from the Party and public office in August and October 2024, respectively [7][8]. - On September 18, 2024, the case was formally prosecuted, resulting in a conviction for bribery with a sentence of eleven years in prison and a fine of 1.5 million yuan [9][20]. Legal Analysis - The actions of "甲" were classified as a violation of organizational discipline and bribery, as he accepted money and facilitated a promotion for "乙" based on the bribe received [11][12]. - The court determined that "甲's" acceptance of a property from a supplier, "戊," constituted bribery, despite the property not being formally registered in his name [13][15]. - The court rejected arguments that "甲's" return of the property indicated a cessation of criminal activity, affirming that the bribery was complete upon acceptance and use of the property [14][16]. Sentencing Considerations - "甲" argued for a lighter sentence based on claims of self-reporting and cooperation, but the court found these claims unsubstantiated, as the investigation had already uncovered his actions prior to any self-reporting [20][21]. - The court concluded that "甲's" actions constituted a particularly large amount of bribery, justifying the eleven-year sentence and fine [21].

Core Points - The case involves three individuals (A, B, C) conspiring to falsely inflate seed procurement quantities, resulting in an overpayment of 120,000 yuan to Company C, which they later divided among themselves [5][9][10] - A, while serving as the head of the Agricultural Technology Promotion Station, engaged in corrupt practices, including embezzlement and bribery, totaling 2.08 million yuan in bribes and 460,000 yuan in collusion with another employee [6][12][14] - The investigation led to A being expelled from the party and public office, with subsequent criminal charges filed for embezzlement, bribery, and collusion [7][18][20] Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - A was responsible for a seed procurement contract, where he, along with B and C, conspired to create a false procurement quantity, leading to an illegal return of 120,000 yuan [4][5] - A's actions included receiving bribes from multiple suppliers, totaling 2.08 million yuan over a decade [6][12] Investigation Process - The investigation began on September 25, 2023, with A being placed under detention, followed by disciplinary actions and criminal charges [7][19] - A was convicted on April 30, 2025, receiving a combined sentence of seven years in prison and a fine of 550,000 yuan [7][18] Legal Interpretations - The actions of A, B, and C were classified as joint embezzlement rather than bribery, as they involved the illegal appropriation of public funds [8][9] - The court determined that A and another employee, D, engaged in joint bribery, with A being the principal actor and D playing a secondary role [15][16]