Core Points - The Yuanjiang Public Security Bureau has revoked the administrative punishment against Gao Guanghua, indicating procedural violations in the handling of his case [1][3] - Gao received a compensation of 1902.08 yuan from the state and accepted an apology from a deputy director of the Yuanjiang Public Security Bureau [3] - Gao expressed mixed feelings about the revocation of the punishment, acknowledging the psychological pressure he faced during the ordeal [3] Summary by Sections Incident Background - Gao Guanghua posted a comment on his WeChat regarding the dismissal of the county's education and sports bureau director, which led to accusations of defamation [5][6] - The incident stemmed from Gao's criticism of a mandatory safety check-in policy for students' parents, which he deemed formalistic [6] Legal Proceedings - Gao was initially subjected to a four-day administrative detention for alleged defamation after the director reported him to the police [6] - Following the revocation of the punishment, Gao withdrew his administrative review application [3] Administrative Compensation - The administrative compensation decision acknowledged that while Gao's post contained untrue information, his proactive cooperation and timely deletion of the post warranted a reconsideration of the punishment [3][6]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released five typical cases involving administrative enforcement against enterprises, demonstrating its commitment to supervising and correcting illegal administrative enforcement actions to protect the legitimate rights and interests of business entities [1][2]. Group 1: Administrative Enforcement Cases - The administrative authorities are required to perform regulatory duties such as administrative enforcement within the legal framework, including defined powers, scope, conditions, and procedures [1]. - In a specific case, a rafting company operating in Qiqihar, Heilongjiang Province, had its five rafting boats seized by the local cultural and tourism bureau due to a lack of registration, and the boats were not returned until April 2022 [1][2]. - The court ruled that the local bureau's seizure of the rafting boats was illegal, as the relevant regulations did not authorize such actions for unregistered entities, and ordered the return of the boats along with compensation for the losses incurred [2]. Group 2: Legal Framework and Court's Role - From 2022 to 2024, approximately 8% of first-instance administrative cases accepted by various levels of people's courts involved administrative enforcement against enterprises [2]. - The courts aim to support administrative authorities in lawfully performing their regulatory duties while also correcting illegal administrative enforcement actions, thereby maintaining market order and promoting trust in governance [2].