[Case Summary]This case is a criminal defense case of intentional injury. On the evening of July 17, 2024, Wu Gang and the victim, Liu Dashan, had a meal and drank alcohol together. Due to a dispute over a 10,000 yuan loan, Wu Gang hit Liu Dashan on the head with a beer bottle, causing his death. The first-instance court sentenced Wu Gang to fixed-term imprisonment of thirteen years for intentional injury. Wu Gang appealed against the verdict and entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle his case.Liu LiqiangThe lawyer conducted the defense. The lawyer constructed the defense system from four dimensions: subjective intent, victim's fault, appraisal opinions, and causality, and argued for circumstances such as voluntary surrender and compensation and reconciliation during the second trial. The second-instance court found that the defendant admitted his guilt and showed remorse, obtained the victim's forgiveness through family compensation, and that the crime was triggered by a private dispute, so it changed the sentence to fixed-term imprisonment of ten years and successfully reduced the sentence by three years. The core disputes were the determination of subjective intent and causality, and the sentencing circumstances. The applicable legal provisions were the Criminal Law on intentional injury, voluntary surrender, and the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law.

I. Review of the case

The family members are concerned about "how many years of imprisonment will be imposed for intentional injury", "whether the sentence can be reduced in the second instance", and "how much impact does compensation and understanding have on sentencing". On the evening of July 17, 2024, Wu Gang, the victim Liu Dashan, and his friend Chen Lijun gathered to have dinner and drinks. During the meal, a fierce argument broke out over Wu Gang's previous debt of 10,000 yuan. After Liu Dashan publicly insulted Wu Gang, Wu Gang picked up a beer bottle and hit Liu Dashan's left forehead with great force, causing his head to bleed. Despite being sent to the hospital for emergency treatment, Liu Dashan still died of craniocerebral injury the next morning. The autopsy revealed multiple causes of death: blunt force trauma to the head resulting in rupture of the middle cerebral artery, extradural hematoma, and brain herniation, while the victim was in a state of severe ethanol poisoning (alcohol content in blood was 247mg/100ml).

The court of first instance held that Wu Gang knew that hitting someone on the head could cause harm, but he still committed violence, with obvious subjective intent, constituting the crime of intentional injury. Although the court accepted his voluntary surrender, it rejected his defense arguments such as negligent causing of death, the victim's fault, and the interruption of the causal relationship. The court sentenced him to fixed-term imprisonment of 13 years and ordered him to compensate for the funeral expenses. Wu Gang disagreed with the criminal judgment and entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the appeal on his behalf.Liu LiqiangThe lawyer filed an appeal.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus I: The debate on subjective intent.It remains to be determined whether Wu Gang's actions were impulsive venting, an active pursuit of harm, or negligent disregard for the potential consequences of serious injury or death, which will ultimately determine whether his actions could be classified as manslaughter.
  • Focus II: The victim's fault and causality.Whether the insults constitute a fault in the sense of criminal law, and whether there is a direct causal relationship between Wu Gang's actions and the death, will affect the sentencing.
  • Focus 3: The sentencing circumstances in the second instance.Can circumstances such as surrendering to the police, making compensation and obtaining forgiveness during the second trial, and conflicts arising from civil disputes lead to a lighter punishment?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The appellant (Wu Gang) claimed that:He and Liu Dashan are friends. The conflict arose solely from a loan and a verbal dispute after drinking. Subjectively, he did not intend to harm anyone and should be considered guilty of causing death by negligence. Liu Dashan's insults exacerbated the conflict. There are doubts about the forensic evidence. In the second instance, the relatives of the victim have compensated them and obtained their forgiveness. Therefore, we request a lenient punishment for him.

The position of the prosecution (prosecutorial organ):The first-instance conviction was accurate. Wu Gang knew that hitting the vital parts of the head would cause harm, but he still did it. He had the intent to cause harm and did not constitute manslaughter; the qualifications of the appraisal institutions were legal and the procedures were standard; the death was caused by the act of hitting, and there was a direct causal relationship between the two.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Liu LiqiangThe lawyers focused on four core disputes:

  • The debate on subjective intent: It emphasizes the subjective mindset of non-intentional harm, which stems from the venting of anger rather than the active pursuit or indifference to the result of serious injury or death.
  • The defense of the victim's fault: Liu Dashan first insulted and provoked conflicts at the dinner table, so his fault should be taken into account when sentencing him.
  • Debate on the appraisal opinion: questioning the objectivity of the appraisal by the Judicial Appraisal Center of China Medical University, the absence of a transcript for the extraction of the sample, the appraisal being conducted four days after the death, or its impact on scientific rigor, and requesting a re-appraisal.
  • Debate on the causality: Liu Dashan himself had health problems such as acute myocardial ischemia, lacunar cerebral infarction, and stage III hypertension, and he drank a lot. His death was caused by multiple factors. Wu Gang's actions were not the only cause, so he should bear corresponding rather than all responsibilities. In addition, he claimed mitigating circumstances such as voluntary surrender and obtaining the understanding of relatives for compensation in the second instance.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court of second instance held that Wu Gang, after drinking alcohol, hit the victim on the head with a beer bottle, causing the victim's death, and constituted the crime of intentional injury, with an accurate conviction; regarding the various grounds of appeal, the court held that Wu Gang knew that hitting the head would cause harm but still committed the act, which showed intentional harm and did not constitute negligent homicide; the victim's insults did not constitute fault in the sense of criminal law; the qualifications of the appraisal institutions were legal and the procedures were standard, and the application for re-appraisal was rejected; the existing evidence confirmed that the death was caused by the act of hitting, and there was a direct causal relationship. However, considering that Wu Gang admitted his guilt and showed remorse, his relatives compensated the victim's relatives for their economic losses during the second instance and obtained their forgiveness, and the case was triggered by civil disputes, the court could impose a light punishment on him. The court of second instance revoked the sentencing part of the first instance and sentenced Wu Gang to fixed-term imprisonment of ten years for the crime of intentional injury. Compared with the first-instance sentence of 13 years, Wu Gang successfully reduced his sentence by three years.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

In criminal defense, "details determine success or failure". This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Liu LiqiangThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101200910454358, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Lawyer's tip: Conflicts after drinking are prone to criminal charges, and rational dispute resolution is the right way; once involved in criminal cases, it is advisable to engage a professional lawyer as soon as possible, and defend the case systematically around subjective intent, legality of evidence, and sentencing circumstances. Circumstances such as voluntary surrender and compensation and apology have a significant impact on sentencing.

VI. Common Questions About Criminal Injury Cases FAQ

  1. Q:What is the typical prison sentence for intentional injury resulting in death?
    A:Anyone who inflicts serious bodily harm on others by particularly cruel means, causing severe disabilities, etc., shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment or death; those who generally cause death shall be sentenced within the range of not less than ten years, with the specific sentencing determined based on subjective intent, circumstances, and consequences.
  2. Q:At the second-instance trial stage, if the defendant reaches a settlement with the victim regarding compensation, can they still receive a reduced sentence?
    A:Yes. During the second instance, the defendant's relatives compensated the victims' relatives for their economic losses and obtained their forgiveness. The court may, based on such circumstances as the defendant's admission of guilt and remorse, and the fact that the case was triggered by civil disputes, decide to give a lighter punishment. In this case, the sentence was changed from 13 years to 10 years in prison.
  3. Q:Does the victim's initial insult count as a fault under criminal law?
    A:Generally, verbal insults do not necessarily constitute a crime in the sense of criminal law. However, if they are an important factor in escalating a conflict, the defense can request that the court take them into account when sentencing, and whether they should be considered is at the discretion of the court.
  4. Q:If there are disputes about the cause of death, can I apply for a re-examination of the autopsy report?
    A:Yes. If there are doubts about the extraction and identification procedures of the evidence or its scientific validity, a party may apply for a re-identification according to law. The court will make a comprehensive judgment on whether to grant the application based on the qualifications of the identification institution and the standardization of the identification procedures, among other factors.
  5. Q:Will the person who caused a fatal fight after drinking alcohol receive a lenient sentence?
    A:Drunkenness is not a statutory mitigating circumstance, but may instead reflect a permissive attitude. The sentencing primarily takes into account factors such as intent to harm, consequences, compensation and apologies, and the nature of the conflict, rather than the act of drinking itself.