一、唐小平走私、贩卖、运输毒品案

跨国毒品犯罪，数量特别巨大，且系累犯，罪行极其严重

【基本案情】

被告人唐小平，男，汉族，1969年8月16日出生，农民。1992年6月18日因犯盗窃罪被判处有期徒刑三年；2004年11月26日因犯故意伤害罪被判处有期徒刑十一个月；2010年11月22日因犯抢劫罪被判处有期徒刑二年，2012年4月1日刑满释放。

2012年11月中旬，被告人唐小平到缅甸联邦邦康市向尼果（已被缅甸司法机关判刑）购买200万颗甲基苯丙胺片剂（俗称“麻古”）。尼果联系彭勇（另案处理，已判刑）将该批毒品走私入境，后彭勇与唐家庄（另案处理，已判刑）将二人向尼果购买的75万颗甲基苯丙胺片剂与唐小平所购毒品一起藏在改装的重型货车车厢夹层内进行运输。同年12月2日，公安人员在云南省孟连傣族拉祜族佤族自治县（以下简称孟连县）一公路上截停上述货车，从车厢夹层内查获甲基苯丙胺片剂共计256.74千克，并将唐家庄抓获。

2012年12月，被告人唐小平与刘进新、王铁成（均系同案被告人，已判刑）商议共同贩卖毒品，约定由唐小平向尼果联系购买毒品，刘进新、王铁成出资并联系运输工具。后刘进新将150万元转入唐小平账户用于支付跨境运输费用，王铁成在刘进新的安排下将大笔现金送至孟连县一宾馆，交给唐小平的亲戚雷某某。在唐小平的联系下，尼果指使他人将毒品从缅甸联邦邦康市运至孟连县，刘进新安排他人接取毒品后藏匿于一废品收购站内。2013年1月15日，公安人员从雷某某所住宾馆房间内查获现金448.16万元，并于次日在上述废品收购站和一处简易房内查获甲基苯丙胺片剂共计96.45千克。

【裁判结果】

本案由云南省普洱市中级人民法院一审，云南省高级人民法院二审。最高人民法院对本案进行了死刑复核。

法院认为，被告人唐小平伙同他人走私、贩卖、运输甲基苯丙胺片剂，其行为已构成走私、贩卖、运输毒品罪。在共同犯罪中，唐小平出境联系购买毒品，并组织、指挥他人支付毒资、接取毒品，系罪责最为严重的主犯，应当按照其所参与和组织、指挥的全部犯罪处罚。唐小平走私、贩卖、运输毒品数量特别巨大，社会危害极大，罪行极其严重，且其曾多次因犯罪被判刑，在刑罚执行完毕后五年内又犯罪，系累犯，主观恶性深，人身危险性大，应依法从重处罚。据此，依法对被告人唐小平判处并核准死刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产。

罪犯唐小平已于2016年6月17日被依法执行死刑。

【典型意义】

走私毒品属于源头性毒品犯罪，境外毒品被走私入境后，经犯罪分子层层转卖、运输，扩散至广大内地城市和吸食消费环节，造成了严重的社会危害。“金三角”缅北地区是国内消费市场上甲基苯丙胺片剂的主要来源。本案就是一起典型的将甲基苯丙胺片剂从缅北地区走私入境的跨国毒品犯罪。该案参与人员、犯罪环节众多，涉案毒品数量、毒资数额特别巨大。被告人唐小平两次以贩卖为目的走私毒品入境，其直接联系境外人员购买毒品，利用或纠集他人运输毒品，在共同犯罪中罪责最为突出，且有盗窃、故意伤害、抢劫等多次犯罪前科。人民法院根据唐小平的毒品犯罪数量、情节、危害后果及其在共同犯罪中的地位、作用，并综合考虑其主观恶性、人身危险性，对其判处死刑，体现了依法严惩走私毒品犯罪的一贯立场。

二、洪海沿制造毒品案

制造毒品数量巨大，并非法持有枪支、弹药，罪行极其严重

【基本案情】

被告人洪海沿，男，汉族，1972年10月16日出生，农民。

2012年7月至2013年5月，被告人洪海沿在其位于广东省陆丰市甲西镇西山一村的旧屋内，伙同他人制造甲基苯丙胺（冰毒），并将制造出的部分毒品藏匿于其在该村的住宅和所经营的“伟发商场”内。2013年5月23日，公安人员抓获洪海沿时，当场从其旧屋、住宅和“伟发商场”内查获甲基苯丙胺共计8605克，含甲基苯丙胺成分的液体共计45.51千克及化学品、制毒工具一批。同时，从洪海沿住宅和“伟发商场”内查获手枪3支、猎枪1支、制式手枪弹46发及其他子弹84发。

【裁判结果】

本案由广东省汕尾市中级人民法院一审，广东省高级人民法院二审。最高人民法院对本案进行了死刑复核。

法院认为，被告人洪海沿伙同他人制造甲基苯丙胺，其行为已构成制造毒品罪；洪海沿违反枪支管理规定，非法持有枪支、子弹，其行为又构成非法持有枪支、弹药罪。洪海沿制造毒品数量巨大，社会危害大，罪行极其严重，应依法惩处。对洪海沿所犯数罪，应依法并罚。据此，依法对被告人洪海沿判处并核准死刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产。

罪犯洪海沿已于2015年11月24日被依法执行死刑。

【典型意义】

近年来，随着以甲基苯丙胺为代表的合成毒品在我国滥用人数的不断增长，制造合成毒品犯罪呈加剧之势，制造甲基苯丙胺犯罪突出。本案就是一起典型的制造甲基苯丙胺犯罪案件。被告人洪海沿伙同他人在自家旧屋内制造甲基苯丙胺，数量达8000余克，其还非法持有枪支、弹药，情节严重，具有严重的社会危害性。人民法院根据其犯罪事实、情节，依法对其判处死刑，体现了对制造合成毒品这类源头性毒品犯罪的严厉惩治，充分发挥了刑罚的威慑作用。

三、舒余坤贩卖毒品案

假释考验期内大量贩卖毒品，且系毒品再犯，罪行极其严重

【基本案情】

被告人舒余坤，男，汉族，1973年5月14日出生，农民。2000年4月17日因犯贩卖毒品罪被判处无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收财产，2011年10月12日被假释，假释考验期至2014年9月4日。

2014年2月22日，被告人舒余坤在云南省寻甸回族彝族自治县倘甸镇的租住房内，向从贵州省贵阳市来向其购买海洛因的杨平、罗太会（均系同案被告人，已判刑）贩卖毒品。其中，杨平出资购买600克海洛因，罗太会出资购买400克海洛因，舒余坤还委托二人将200克海洛因运回贵阳市代其贩卖。2月23日，杨平、罗太会携带海洛因返回贵阳市，于当日19时30分许在贵阳市云岩区金关收费站被抓获，公安人员当场从罗太会的提包中查获1194克海洛因。2月28日，公安人员在云南省昆明市倘甸工业园区冯家村将舒余坤抓获，当场从其家中查获1050.4克海洛因。

【裁判结果】

本案由贵州省贵阳市中级人民法院一审，贵州省高级人民法院二审。最高人民法院对本案进行了死刑复核。

法院认为，被告人舒余坤贩卖海洛因，其行为已构成贩卖毒品罪。舒余坤贩卖毒品数量大，社会危害大，罪行极其严重，应依法惩处。舒余坤曾因犯贩卖毒品罪被判处无期徒刑，在假释考验期内又犯贩卖毒品罪，系毒品再犯，应依法从重处罚，并应撤销假释，与前罪没有执行完毕的刑罚并罚。据此，依法对被告人舒余坤判处并核准死刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产。

罪犯舒余坤已于2016年6月21日被依法执行死刑。

【典型意义】

当前，毒品犯罪中累犯、再犯的比例较高，部分毒品犯罪分子在假释或者暂予监外执行期间又实施毒品犯罪，反映出较深的主观恶性和人身危险性，历来是毒品犯罪的重点惩治对象。本案就是一起毒品犯罪分子在假释考验期内又大量贩卖毒品，被依法判处死刑的典型案例。被告人舒余坤系毒品上线，其掌握毒品来源，大量持毒待售，对促成毒品交易起到更大的作用。在抓获舒余坤的同时，另从其住处查获待售的1000余克海洛因，应依法认定为其贩卖的毒品。舒余坤在假释考验期内犯新罪，前后两罪均系贩卖毒品罪，且前罪被判处重刑，反映其不思悔改，主观恶性深，人身危险性大。人民法院对舒余坤判处并核准死刑，体现了对罪行极其严重毒品犯罪分子的依法严惩。

四、陈万寿故意杀人案

吸毒致幻后杀死无辜幼儿，罪行极其严重

【基本案情】

被告人陈万寿，男，汉族，1979年10月17日出生，农民。

被告人陈万寿常年吸毒，曾被强制隔离戒毒二年后复吸毒品。2013年9月20日12时许，陈万寿在广东省湛江市麻章区太平镇岭头村家中吸毒产生幻觉后，持菜刀闯入邻居陈某甲住宅，挟持陈某甲之子陈某乙（被害人，殁年3岁），威胁在一旁劝阻的群众。公安人员接警后赶到现场，陈万寿将陈某乙挟持至院内，不顾众人劝解，持菜刀砍切陈某乙颈部一刀，致其当场死亡。

【裁判结果】

本案由广东省湛江市中级人民法院一审，广东省高级人民法院二审。最高人民法院对本案进行了死刑复核。

法院认为，被告人陈万寿故意非法剥夺他人生命，其行为已构成故意杀人罪。陈万寿吸毒产生幻觉后，行凶杀害年仅3岁的幼儿，犯罪手段残忍，情节恶劣，罪行极其严重，应依法惩处。据此，依法对被告人陈万寿判处并核准死刑，剥夺政治权利终身。

罪犯陈万寿已于2016年1月22日被依法执行死刑。

【典型意义】

毒品具有中枢神经兴奋、抑制或者致幻作用，会使吸毒者出现兴奋、狂躁、抑郁，甚至被害妄想、幻视幻听等症状，进而导致其自伤自残或实施暴力犯罪。近年来，因吸毒诱发的故意杀人、故意伤害等暴力犯罪频发，严重危害社会治安，有的案件造成了恶劣的社会影响。本案就是一起因吸毒诱发故意杀人犯罪的典型案例。被告人陈万寿与被害人是邻居，两家平日关系尚好。陈万寿长期吸毒，曾被强制隔离戒毒，后又复吸，且此前曾有过吸毒致幻现象。陈万寿作案前一小时左右吸食毒品，随后产生幻觉，持菜刀闯入邻居家中挟持年仅3岁的被害人陈某乙，并不顾到场公安人员和群众的劝阻，将陈某乙残忍杀害。该案充分反映出毒品对吸毒者本人、家庭乃至社会的严重危害。广大群众尤其是青少年应当切实提高识毒、防毒、拒毒的意识和能力，珍爱生命，远离毒品。

五、孙静贩卖毒品案

通过网络贩卖毒品，并利用未成年人犯罪，依法严惩

【基本案情】

被告人孙静，女，汉族，1993年6月9日出生，无业。

被告人孙静系吸毒人员。2013年9月至2014年3月，孙静购得甲基苯丙胺后，以其创建的百度贴吧“三妈很强大”及QQ群“当岔道已成往事”“一口浓烟吐出美好明天”等为载体联系毒品买家，在网上约定交易细节后，将毒品藏在玩具兔子内通过快递寄给买家。孙静多次从在网上认识的杜仲伟（另案处理，已判刑）处购买甲基苯丙胺共计1000余克，从黄辉、周丽瑶（均另案处理，已判刑）处购买甲基苯丙胺110克，通过网络将购得的毒品贩卖给北京、辽宁、山东、江苏等20余个省份的吸毒人员，发送快递共计200余件，获毒赃55万余元。

2014年2月中下旬，被告人孙静在明知刘某某系未成年人的情况下，仍指使刘为其发送装有甲基苯丙胺的快递，并指使刘协助其对QQ群“当岔道已成往事”进行管理。同年3月6日，孙静前往湖南省郴州市欲向黄辉、周丽瑶购买毒品时被抓获，公安人员当场查获其购毒款3.46万元。

【裁判结果】

本案由湖南省长沙市中级人民法院审理。

法院认为，被告人孙静伙同他人贩卖甲基苯丙胺，其行为已构成贩卖毒品罪。孙静贩卖毒品数量大，且多次、向多人贩卖，犯罪情节恶劣，社会危害大，应依法惩处。孙静出资购买毒品，积极联系买家，直接交寄毒品，并指使他人参与贩卖毒品，在共同犯罪中起主要作用，系主犯，应当按照其所参与的全部犯罪处罚。孙静利用未成年人贩卖毒品，应依法从重处罚。据此，依法对被告人孙静判处无期徒刑，剥夺政治权利终身，并处没收个人全部财产。

宣判后，在法定期限内没有上诉、抗诉，上述裁判已于2015年7月26日发生法律效力。

【典型意义】

随着信息网络的普及，网络涉毒犯罪呈快速蔓延之势，主要表现为利用网络贩卖毒品、买卖制毒物品、传播制毒技术和组织他人吸毒等。本案就是一起利用互联网贩卖毒品的典型案例。被告人孙静创建百度贴吧、QQ群用于联系毒品买家，涉毒网络群组人数众多；在短短数月内，其发送涉毒快递200余件，贩卖对象覆盖20余个省份的吸毒人员，反映出网络毒品犯罪影响范围广、不受地域限制、社会危害大的现实特点。同时，孙静虽有吸毒行为，但其短期内大量购入毒品，主要是为了贩卖，人民法院按照其购买的毒品数量认定其贩卖毒品数量，仅在量刑时对其吸食毒品的情节予以酌情考虑，体现了对此类犯罪的依法从严惩处。当前，互联网是广大群众尤其是青少年获取外界信息的重要渠道，利用互联网实施的毒品犯罪较传统犯罪具有更大的危害性和影响力，对于网络涉毒犯罪应保持高压态势，坚决遏制毒品通过网络渠道蔓延。

六、莫进友贩卖毒品案

武装掩护毒品犯罪，依法严惩

【基本案情】

被告人莫进友，男，汉族，1992年12月9日出生，农民。

2015年3月16日凌晨，被告人莫进友在广西壮族自治区东兴市东兴镇凯迪阳光假日酒店，将1小包氯胺酮贩卖给吸毒人员王某某。二人交易结束后被公安人员发现，王某某被当场抓获，公安人员从其身上查获2.48克氯胺酮。莫进友在逃跑过程中持随身携带的手枪朝公安人员追来的方向射击，后将携带的5.23克甲基苯丙胺、0.79克氯胺酮丢弃于路边绿化带内。莫进友逃至一交叉路口欲拦车逃跑时被抓获，公安人员当场从其身上查获手枪1支、子弹3发。

【裁判结果】

本案由广西壮族自治区东兴市人民法院一审，广西壮族自治区防城港市中级人民法院二审。

法院认为，被告人莫进友贩卖甲基苯丙胺、氯胺酮，其行为已构成贩卖毒品罪。莫进友在实施贩卖毒品犯罪的过程中，随身携带枪支，并向公安人员开枪射击，其行为属于刑法第三百四十七条第二款第三项规定的武装掩护贩卖毒品，应依法惩处。据此，依法对被告人莫进友判处有期徒刑十五年，并处没收财产人民币2万元。

上述裁判已于2015年12月4日发生法律效力。

【典型意义】

近年来，毒品犯罪分子在实施走私、贩卖、运输、制造毒品犯罪的过程中，为掩护犯罪而携带枪支、弹药、爆炸物的案件屡有发生。特别是在广西、云南等边境地区，“枪毒合流”案件呈上升趋势。武装掩护毒品犯罪，不仅大大增加了执法机关查缉毒品犯罪的风险，也对社会治安和人民群众的生命财产安全构成威胁，并反映出犯罪分子较深的主观恶性和较大的人身危险性。因此，刑法第三百四十七条第二款第三项规定，犯罪分子具有“武装掩护走私、贩卖、运输、制造毒品”情节的，无论毒品数量多少，均应判处十五年有期徒刑以上刑罚。本案就是一起典型的贩毒人员携带枪支、弹药掩护毒品犯罪的案件。被告人莫进友贩卖少量毒品，却在实施毒品交易时随身携带枪支、弹药，并向追赶的公安人员开枪射击，虽未造成人员伤亡，但仍应认定为武装掩护贩卖毒品。人民法院根据其犯罪事实、情节，依法对其判处有期徒刑十五年，并处没收部分个人财产，体现了对武装掩护型毒品犯罪的依法严惩。

七、林坤武贩卖毒品案

多次零包贩卖毒品，且系累犯和毒品再犯，依法严惩

【基本案情】

被告人林坤武，男，汉族，1968年7月8日出生，无业。2009年1月5日因犯盗窃罪被判处有期徒刑一年零二个月，并处罚金人民币8000元；2011年1月28日因犯贩卖毒品罪被判处有期徒刑十一个月，并处罚金人民币1000元；2012年11月7日因犯贩卖毒品罪被判处有期徒刑一年零一个月，并处罚金人民币2000元，2013年7月3日刑满释放。

被告人林坤武在福建省东山县铜陵镇家中多次向吸毒人员贩卖海洛因共计0.7克。其中，2014年11月12日、27日，林坤武在家中两次向吸毒人员洪某贩卖海洛因，每次0.1克；同月13日、27日，林坤武在家中两次向吸毒人员陈某某贩卖海洛因，每次0.1克；同月25日、26日、27日，林坤武在家中三次向吸毒人员何某某贩卖海洛因，每次0.1克。同月27日，公安人员在林坤武家中将其抓获，并当场从客厅查获0.7克海洛因。

【裁判结果】

本案由福建省东山县人民法院一审，福建省漳州市中级人民法院二审。

法院认为，被告人林坤武贩卖海洛因，其行为已构成贩卖毒品罪。林坤武多次并向多人贩卖毒品，犯罪情节严重，且其曾因犯贩卖毒品罪被判刑，在刑罚执行完毕后五年内又犯贩卖毒品罪，系累犯和毒品再犯，应依法从重处罚。据此，依法对被告人林坤武判处有期徒刑四年零八个月，并处罚金人民币3000元。

上述裁判已于2015年10月29日发生法律效力。

【典型意义】

近年来，受毒品消费市场持续膨胀影响，涉案毒品数量在10克以下的零包贩毒案件增长迅速，且此类案件在贩卖毒品案件乃至全部毒品犯罪案件中均占有较高比例。零包贩毒是毒品犯罪的末端环节，直接导致毒品进入吸食、消费领域，社会危害不容忽视。因此，严厉打击零包贩毒犯罪，是有效遏制毒品问题蔓延和毒品犯罪增长的重要手段。本案中，被告人林坤武每次贩卖海洛因仅0.1克，共贩卖海洛因1.4克，虽然数量较少，但其多次并向多名吸毒人员贩卖毒品，具有较大的社会危害性。根据相关司法解释的规定，其犯罪行为属于刑法第三百四十七条第四款规定的“情节严重”，依法应当判处三年以上七年以下有期徒刑。林坤武有三次犯罪前科，且两次因犯贩卖毒品罪被判刑，仍不思悔改，又贩卖毒品，主观恶性较深。人民法院根据其犯罪事实，及其系累犯、毒品再犯的情节，在法定量刑幅度内对其从重判处刑罚，较好地贯彻了严厉打击末端毒品犯罪的刑事政策。

八、高锋容留他人吸毒案

娱乐场所管理者容留多人吸食毒品，依法严惩

【基本案情】

被告人高锋，男，汉族，1977年6月20日出生，广东省珠海市香洲区东方星会所经理。

2014年10月16日，被告人高锋应聘到珠海市香洲区南湾南路4017号东方星会所任经理，负责会所的经营、订房等全面工作。同年12月1日0时许，高锋在明知有客人要在该会所内吸毒的情况下，仍然将两个房间提供给客人娱乐消费。当日3时许，公安人员在该会所的两个房间内查获55名吸毒人员。当日16时许，高锋被抓获归案。

【裁判结果】

本案由广东省珠海市香洲区人民法院一审，珠海市中级人民法院二审。

法院认为，被告人高锋容留他人吸食毒品，其行为已构成容留他人吸毒罪。高锋归案后如实供述自己的罪行，认罪态度较好，依法可以从轻处罚。据此，依法对被告人高锋判处有期徒刑二年，并处罚金人民币5万元。

上述裁判已于2015年6月26日发生法律效力。

【典型意义】

近年来，容留他人吸毒犯罪案件增长迅速。其中，一些娱乐场所的经营者、管理者为招揽生意而容留他人吸毒的案件时有发生。本案就是一起娱乐场所管理者容留多人吸毒的典型案例。被告人高锋作为涉案娱乐场所的管理者，明知有顾客要在其会所包房内吸食毒品，但其为了增加营业收入，仍为他人提供吸食毒品的场所，且一次性容留55人吸毒，犯罪情节恶劣。人民法院根据其犯罪性质、情节、后果，依法对其从严惩处。该案例告诫娱乐场所的经营者、管理者，应当认真遵守国家禁毒法律法规，严格落实禁毒防范措施，预防毒品违法犯罪在本场所内发生，发现娱乐场所内有毒品违法犯罪活动的，应立即向公安机关报告，决不能为了招揽生意或者碍于情面而容留他人吸毒。禁绝毒品，人人有责，作为公共场所的经营者、管理者，更应提高防毒拒毒的责任意识。

九、李贵松等抢劫案

为获取毒资共谋抢劫，并利用未成年人犯罪，依法严惩

【基本案情】

被告人李贵松，男，汉族，1990年9月17日出生，农民。

被告人王洪，男，汉族，1990年10月5日出生，农民。

被告人李贵松系吸毒人员，无正当收入来源。为谋钱财，李贵松伙同被告人王洪指使女性未成年人杨某某、丁某某等人，以招嫖名义将嫖娼人员诱骗至隐蔽处实施抢劫。2015年5月31日晚，杨某某、丁某某在云南省大理市一公园内招嫖，后丁某某将被害人张某某带至该市下关镇一小区单元楼入口处。丁某某打电话联系李贵松，李贵松、王洪等人赶到后，采用暴力手段劫取张某某现金1500余元。

【裁判结果】

本案由云南省大理市人民法院审理。

法院认为，被告人李贵松、王洪以非法占有为目的，采用暴力手段劫取他人财物，其行为均已构成抢劫罪。在共同犯罪中，李贵松、王洪共谋抢劫，纠集未成年人参与作案，并积极实施抢劫行为，均起主要作用，系主犯，对二人均应按照其所参与的全部犯罪处罚。据此，依法对被告人李贵松、王洪均判处有期徒刑四年，并处罚金人民币2000元。

宣判后，在法定期限内没有上诉、抗诉，上述裁判已于2016年4月19日发生法律效力。

【典型意义】

吸食毒品花费巨大，且戒断难度大、复吸比例较高。一旦沾染毒品，即如同踏上一条“不归路”，一些吸毒人员因此倾家荡产、家庭破裂，也有一些吸毒人员为获取购毒资金不惜以身试法、铤而走险。近年来，无收入来源的吸毒人员为获取毒资，实施抢劫、盗窃等侵财性犯罪的案件呈上升趋势。本案中，被告人李贵松系吸毒人员，其为筹集毒资及生活费用，与他人共谋以色诱的方式实施抢劫，并利用女性未成年人实施犯罪，最终受到法律的严惩。未成年人杨某某系农村外出务工人员，认识李贵松后受到李的诱惑、哄骗开始吸毒，又在李的指使下参与抢劫，走上违法犯罪道路。未成年人涉世未深，抵制诱惑、分辨是非的能力不强，容易受到身边不良因素的影响而沾染恶习。杨某某的经历充分说明毒品对未成年人的特殊危害，为广大未成年人及家长敲响了警钟。希望广大群众尤其是青少年能够深刻认识本案例的警示作用，自觉远离毒品、抵制毒品危害。

十、陈学建以危险方法危害公共安全案

吸毒后驾驶机动车危害公共安全，投案自首，依法惩处

【基本案情】

被告人陈学建，男，汉族，1984年2月29日出生，个体经营户。

2015年3月20日，被告人陈学建驾车途中，在一高速公路服务区停车吸食毒品。当日23时许，陈学建驾车行至上海市曲阳路、中山北二路时，遇公安人员设卡例行检查。陈学建拒不接受检查，强行驾车闯卡逃逸，公安人员遂驾驶警车对其进行追截。陈学建驾车连续闯红灯、在非机动车道逆向快速行驶、碰撞道路隔离栏，并剐倒一名行人，在逃至广灵二路近广纪路口时被追截的警车碰撞仍不停车，在撞碎一面包房玻璃墙后弃车逃跑。次日，陈学建向公安机关投案。

【裁判结果】

本案由上海市虹口区人民法院审理。

法院认为，被告人陈学建吸食毒品后驾车违章行驶，危及不特定多数人的人身、财产安全，其行为已构成以危险方法危害公共安全罪。陈学建作案后主动投案，如实供述犯罪事实，构成自首，依法可从轻处罚。据此，依法对被告人陈学建判处有期徒刑三年零六个月。

宣判后，在法定期限内没有上诉、抗诉，上述裁判已于2015年9月18日发生法律效力。

【典型意义】

吸食毒品严重危害吸毒人员身心健康。一些毒品因具有兴奋、致幻作用，吸食后会对吸毒人员的驾驶能力产生影响，使其出现感知错位、注意力无法集中、幻视幻听等症状。因此，吸毒后驾驶机动车，极易因驾驶行为失控而肇事肇祸。此类案件近年来已多次发生。本案就是一起吸毒后驾驶机动车危害公共安全的典型案例。被告人陈学建吸食毒品后驾车进入上海市区，遇检查而强行闯卡、连续违章，并撞击公共设施、刮蹭行人、毁坏他人财物，其行为严重影响交通安全，并对不特定多数人的人身、财产权益造成了损害。人民法院依法认定陈学建的行为构成以危险方法危害公共安全罪，但鉴于其有自首情节而对其从轻处罚，较好地体现了宽严相济刑事政策。

1、 Tang Xiaoping's Smuggling, Trafficking, and Transportation of Drugs Case

Transnational drug crimes, with a particularly large number and being recidivists, are extremely serious

Basic Case

The defendant Tang Xiaoping, male, Han nationality, was born on August 16, 1969 and is a farmer. On June 18, 1992, he was sentenced to three years in prison for committing theft; On November 26, 2004, he was sentenced to eleven months in prison for committing intentional harm; On November 22, 2010, he was sentenced to two years in prison for committing robbery, and was released after serving his sentence on April 1, 2012.

In mid November 2012, the defendant Tang Xiaoping went to Bangkang City, Union of Myanmar to purchase 2 million methamphetamine tablets (commonly known as "Magu") from Niger (which has been sentenced by the Myanmar judicial authorities). Niego contacted Peng Yong (handled separately and sentenced) to smuggle the batch of drugs into the country. Later, Peng Yong and Tang Jiazhuang (handled separately and sentenced) hid the 750000 methamphetamine tablets they purchased from Niego together with the drugs purchased by Tang Xiaoping in the mezzanine of a modified heavy truck carriage for transportation. On December 2 of the same year, public security personnel stopped the above-mentioned truck on a highway in Menglian Dai, Lahu, and Wa Autonomous County (hereinafter referred to as Menglian County), Yunnan Province. They seized a total of 256.74 kilograms of methamphetamine tablets from the interlayer of the carriage and arrested Tangjiazhuang.

In December 2012, the defendant Tang Xiaoping, along with Liu Jinxin and Wang Tiecheng (both defendants in the same case and sentenced), discussed jointly selling drugs and agreed that Tang Xiaoping would contact Nigel to purchase drugs. Liu Jinxin and Wang Tiecheng would contribute and contact transportation vehicles. Later, Liu Jinxin transferred 1.5 million yuan to Tang Xiaoping's account to pay for cross-border transportation costs. Under Liu Jinxin's arrangement, Wang Tiecheng sent a large amount of cash to a hotel in Menglian County and handed it over to Tang Xiaoping's relative, Lei. Under the contact of Tang Xiaoping, Niego instructed others to transport drugs from Bangkang City, Myanmar to Menglian County. Liu Jinxin arranged for others to collect the drugs and hide them in a waste collection station. On January 15, 2013, public security personnel seized 4.4816 million yuan in cash from the hotel room where Lei was staying, and the following day, a total of 96.45 kilograms of methamphetamine tablets were seized at the above-mentioned waste acquisition station and a simple room.

【 Judgment result 】

This case was first instance by the Intermediate People's Court of Pu'er City, Yunnan Province, and second instance by the Higher People's Court of Yunnan Province. The Supreme People's Court conducted a death penalty review of this case.

The court believes that the defendant Tang Xiaoping colluded with others to smuggle, sell, and transport methamphetamine tablets, which constitutes the crime of smuggling, selling, and transporting drugs. In the joint crime, Tang Xiaoping, who went abroad to contact and purchase drugs, and organized and commanded others to pay drug funds and take drugs, is the most serious principal offender and should be punished according to all the crimes he participated in, organized and commanded. Tang Xiaoping smuggled, sold, and transported a particularly large amount of drugs, posing great social harm and committing extremely serious crimes. He has been sentenced multiple times for crimes and committed another crime within five years after the completion of the sentence. He is a recidivist with a deep subjective malignancy and high personal danger, and should be punished severely in accordance with the law. Based on this, the defendant Tang Xiaoping was sentenced and approved to death in accordance with the law, deprived of political rights for life, and concurrently confiscated of all personal property.

The criminal Tang Xiaoping was executed in accordance with the law on June 17, 2016.

Typical significance

Smuggling drugs belongs to the source of drug crimes. After foreign drugs are smuggled into China, they are resold and transported by criminals layer by layer, spreading to mainland cities and consumption links, causing serious social harm. The "Golden Triangle" region in northern Myanmar is the main source of methamphetamine tablets in the domestic consumer market. This case is a typical transnational drug crime of smuggling methamphetamine tablets into Myanmar from the northern region. There are numerous participants and criminal links involved in this case, with a particularly large number of drugs and drug funds involved. The defendant Tang Xiaoping smuggled drugs into China twice for the purpose of trafficking. He directly contacted overseas personnel to purchase drugs and used or gathered others to transport drugs. His criminal responsibility was most prominent in the joint crime, and he had multiple criminal records such as theft, intentional injury, and robbery. The people's court 

sentenced Tang Xiaoping to death based on the number, plot, harmful consequences, and position and role in joint crimes of drug crimes, as well as considering his subjective malignancy and personal danger, reflecting the consistent stance of strictly punishing drug smuggling crimes in accordance with the law.

2、 Honghaiyan Drug Manufacturing Case

Manufacturing a huge amount of drugs and illegally possessing firearms and ammunition, the crime is extremely serious

Basic Case

The defendant, Hong Haiyan, male, Han nationality, was born on October 16, 1972 as a farmer.

From July 2012 to May 2013, the defendant Hong Haiyan collaborated with others to manufacture methamphetamine (methamphetamine) in his old house located in Xishanyi Village, Jiaxi Town, Lufeng City, Guangdong Province, and hid some of the produced drugs in his residence and the "Weifa Shopping Mall" he operated in the village. On May 23, 2013, when public security personnel arrested Hong Haiyan, a total of 8605 grams of methamphetamine, 45.51 kilograms of liquid containing methamphetamine, and a batch of chemicals and drug manufacturing tools were seized from his old house, residence, and "Weifa Shopping Mall" on the spot. At the same time, three pistols, one hunting gun, 46 standard pistol bullets, and 84 other bullets were seized from the residential area along Honghai and the "Weifa Shopping Mall".

【 Judgment result 】

This case was first instance by the Intermediate People's Court of Shanwei City, Guangdong Province, and second instance by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province. The Supreme People's Court conducted a death penalty review of this case.

The court believes that the defendant, Hong Haiyan, conspired with others to manufacture methamphetamine, which constitutes the crime of manufacturing drugs; Hong Haiyan violated gun control regulations by illegally holding firearms and ammunition, which in turn constitutes the crime of illegally holding firearms and ammunition. The amount of drugs manufactured along the Honghai River is huge, causing great social harm, and the crimes are extremely serious, which should be punished in accordance with the law. Several crimes committed along the Honghai River should be punished in accordance with the law. Based on this, the defendant Hong Haiyan was sentenced and approved to death in accordance with the law, deprived of political rights for life, and concurrently confiscated of all personal property.

The criminal Hong Haiyan was executed in accordance with the law on November 24, 2015.

Typical significance

In recent years, with the continuous increase in the number of people abusing synthetic drugs, represented by methamphetamine, in China, the crime of manufacturing synthetic drugs has intensified, and the crime of manufacturing methamphetamine has become prominent. This case is a typical case of methamphetamine manufacturing crime. The defendant Hong Haiyan, together with others, manufactured methamphetamine in his old house, with a quantity of over 8000 grams. He also illegally held firearms and ammunition, and the circumstances were serious, posing serious social hazards. The people's court sentenced him to death in accordance with the facts and circumstances of his crime, reflecting the severe punishment for the crime of producing synthetic drugs and other source drugs, and fully exerting the deterrent effect of the punishment.

3、 Shu Yukun's Drug Trafficking Case

During the probationary period of parole, a large amount of drug trafficking was committed again, and the crime was extremely serious

Basic Case

The defendant Shu Yukun, male, Han nationality, was born on May 14, 1973 and is a farmer. On April 17, 2000, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of drug trafficking, deprived of political rights for life, and sentenced to confiscation of property. He was paroled on October 12, 2011, with a probationary period until September 4, 2014.

On February 22, 2014, the defendant Shu Yukun sold drugs to Yang Ping and Luo Taihui (both co defendants and sentenced) who came from Guiyang City, Guizhou Province to purchase heroin from him in a rented house in Randian Town, Xundian Hui and Yi Autonomous County, Yunnan Province. Among them, Yang Ping contributed to the purchase of 600 grams of heroin, Luo Taihui contributed to the purchase of 400 grams of heroin, and Shu Yukun also entrusted the two people to transport 200 grams of heroin back to Guiyang City for sale. On February 23rd, Yang Ping and Luo Taihui returned to Guiyang City with heroin. At around 19:30 on the same day, they were arrested at the Jinguan toll station in Yunyan District, Guiyang City. Public security personnel seized 1194 grams of heroin from Luo Taihui's bag on the spot. On February 28th, public security personnel arrested Shu Yukun in Fengjia Village, Rangdian Industrial Park, Kunming City, Yunnan Province, and seized 1050.4 grams of heroin from his home on the spot.

【 Judgment result 】

This case was first instance by the Intermediate People's Court of Guiyang City, Guizhou Province, and second instance by the Higher People's Court of Guizhou Province. The Supreme People's Court conducted a death penalty review of this case.

The court believes that the defendant Shu Yukun's act of selling heroin constitutes a crime of drug trafficking. Shu Yukun's drug trafficking volume is large, causing great harm to society, and his crimes are extremely serious, which should be punished in accordance with the law. Shu Yukun was sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of drug trafficking, and also committed the crime of drug trafficking during the probation period of parole. He is a repeat drug offender and should be given a heavier punishment in accordance with the law. His parole should be revoked, and he should be punished together with the punishment for the previous crime that was not fully executed. Based on this, the defendant Shu Yukun was sentenced to death and approved in accordance with the law, deprived of political rights for life, and concurrently confiscated of all personal property.

The criminal Shu Yukun was executed in accordance with the law on June 21, 2016.

Typical significance

At present, the proportion of recidivists and recidivists in drug crimes is relatively high, and some drug criminals commit drug crimes during their parole or temporary execution outside prison, reflecting a deeper subjective malignancy and personal danger. They have always been the key targets of punishment for drug crimes. This case is a typical case of a drug criminal who sold a large amount of drugs during the probation period of parole and was sentenced to death in accordance with the law. The defendant Shu Yukun is a drug dealer who has access to the source of the drug and holds a large amount for sale, playing a greater role in facilitating drug transactions. At the same time as capturing Shu Yukun, more than 1000 grams of heroin were seized from his residence for sale, which should be legally recognized as the drugs he was selling. Shu Yukun committed a new crime during the probationary period of parole, both of which were drug trafficking crimes. The previous crime was sentenced to a heavy sentence, reflecting his lack of repentance, deep subjective malice, and high personal danger. The People's Court sentenced and approved the death penalty for Shu Yukun, reflecting the strict punishment of extremely serious drug criminals in accordance with the law.

4、 Chen Wanshou's intentional homicide case

The crime of killing innocent young children after drug addiction and hallucination is extremely serious

Basic Case

The defendant Chen Wanshou, male, Han nationality, was born on October 17, 1979 and is a farmer.

The defendant, Chen Wanshou, has been using drugs for many years and has been forcibly quarantined for drug rehabilitation for two years before resuming drug use. At around 12:00 on September 20, 2013, Chen Wanshou developed hallucinations while taking drugs at his home in Lingtou Village, Taiping Town, Mazhang District, Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province. He broke into his neighbor Chen Moujia's house with a kitchen knife and took Chen Mouyi, the son of Chen Moujia (the victim, who died at the age of 3), threatening the people who were trying to dissuade him. After receiving the alarm, the public security personnel rushed to the scene, and Chen Wanshou kidnapped Chen Mouyi into the hospital. Despite everyone's persuasion, he wielded a kitchen knife and cut Chen Mouyi's neck, causing him to die on the spot.

【 Judgment result 】

This case was first instance by the Intermediate People's Court of Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province, and second instance by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province. The Supreme People's Court conducted a death penalty review of this case.

The court believes that the defendant Chen Wanshou intentionally and illegally deprived others of their lives, and his behavior constitutes intentional homicide. After Chen Wanshou developed hallucinations while taking drugs, he committed murder against a 3-year-old child. The crime was cruel and the circumstances were heinous. The crime was extremely serious and should be punished in accordance with the law. Based on this, the defendant Chen Wanshou was sentenced to death and approved in accordance with the law, deprived of political rights for life.

Criminal Chen Wanshou was executed in accordance with the law on January 22, 2016.

Typical significance

Drugs have central nervous system excitatory, inhibitory, or hallucinogenic effects, which can cause drug users to experience symptoms such as excitement, mania, depression, and even delusions, visual and auditory hallucinations, leading to self harm, self harm, or violent crimes. In recent years, violent crimes such as intentional homicide and intentional injury induced by drug use have occurred frequently, seriously endangering social security, and some cases have caused adverse social impacts. This case is a typical case of intentional homicide caused by drug use. The defendant Chen Wanshou and the victim are neighbors, and the two families have a good relationship on weekdays. Chen Wanshou has been taking drugs for a long time and has been forced to undergo isolation and rehabilitation. He has also relapsed, and has previously experienced hallucinogenic drug use. Chen Wanshou smoked drugs about an hour before committing the crime, and then developed hallucinations. He broke into a neighbor's house with a kitchen knife and kidnapped the 3-year-old victim Chen Mouyi. Despite the persuasion of public security personnel and the public, he brutally killed Chen Mouyi. This case fully reflects the serious harm that drugs pose to drug users themselves, their families, and even society. The general public, especially teenagers, should effectively improve their awareness and ability to recognize, prevent, and reject drugs, cherish their lives, and stay away from drugs.

5、 Sun Jing's Drug Trafficking Case

Selling drugs through the internet and using minors to commit crimes shall be severely punished in accordance with the law

Basic Case

The defendant Sun Jing, female, Han nationality, was born on June 9, 1993, unemployed.

The defendant Sun Jing is a drug user. From September 2013 to March 2014, after Sun Jing purchased methamphetamine, she contacted drug buyers using Baidu Tieba's "Three Moms Are Powerful" and QQ groups such as "When a fork in the road has become a thing of the past" and "A mouthful of thick smoke spits out a beautiful tomorrow" as carriers. After agreeing on transaction details online, she hid the drug in a toy rabbit and sent it to the buyer via express delivery. Sun Jing repeatedly purchased more than 1000 grams of methamphetamine from Du Zhongwei (who was dealt with separately and sentenced) he met online, and 110 grams of methamphetamine from Huang Hui and Zhou Liyao (who were both dealt with separately and sentenced). He sold the purchased drugs online to drug users in more than 20 provinces such as Beijing, Liaoning, Shandong, and Jiangsu, and sent a total of over 200 packages via express delivery, receiving over 550000 yuan in stolen drugs.

In mid to late February 2014, the defendant Sun Jing, knowing that Liu was a minor, still instructed Liu to send a courier containing methamphetamine to him and instructed Liu Xie to assist him in managing the QQ group's "fork in the road has become a thing of the past". On March 6th of the same year, Sun Jing was arrested while going to Chenzhou City, Hunan Province to purchase drugs from Huang Hui and Zhou Liyao. Public security personnel seized 34600 yuan of his drug purchase money on the spot.

【 Judgment result 】

This case is being tried by the Intermediate People's Court of Changsha City, Hunan Province.

The court believes that the defendant Sun Jinghu's behavior of selling methamphetamine with others constitutes the crime of drug trafficking. Sun Jing sold a large number of drugs and sold them multiple times to multiple people. The criminal circumstances were severe and the social harm was significant, and he should be punished in accordance with the law. Sun Jing invested in the purchase of drugs, actively contacted the buyer, directly delivered the drugs, and instructed others to participate in drug trafficking. They played a major role in the joint crime and were the main offenders, and should be punished according to all the crimes they participated in. Sun Jingli should be given a heavier punishment in accordance with the law for using minors to sell drugs. Based on this, the defendant Sun Jing was sentenced to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, and concurrently confiscated of all personal property in accordance with the law.

After the judgment was pronounced, there was no appeal or protest within the statutory period, and the above judgment took legal effect on July 26, 2015.

Typical significance

With the popularization of information networks, drug related crimes on the internet are rapidly spreading, mainly manifested in the use of the internet to sell drugs, buy and sell drug products, spread drug production technology, and organize others to take drugs. This case is a typical case of using the internet to sell drugs. The defendant Sun Jing created Baidu Tieba and QQ groups to contact drug buyers, with a large number of drug related online groups; In just a few months, it sent over 200 drug related express deliveries, targeting drug users from over 20 provinces, reflecting the widespread impact of online drug crimes, no geographical restrictions, and significant social harm. At the same time, although Sun Jing engaged in drug abuse, he purchased a large amount of drugs in the short term mainly for the purpose of trafficking. The people's court determined the amount of drugs he sold based on the amount of drugs he purchased, and only considered the circumstances of his drug use in sentencing, reflecting the strict punishment of such crimes in accordance with the law. At present, the Internet is an important channel for the general public, especially teenagers, to obtain external information. Drug crimes committed through the Internet have greater harm and influence than traditional crimes. For online drug related crimes, a high-pressure situation should be maintained, and the spread of drugs through online channels should be firmly curbed.

6、 Mo Jinyou's drug trafficking case

Armed cover up drug crimes and strict punishment in accordance with the law

Basic Case

Defendant Mo Jinyou, male, Han nationality, born on December 9, 1992, is a farmer.

On the early morning of March 16, 2015, the defendant Mo Jinyou sold a small packet of ketamine to drug user Wang at Kaidi Sunshine Holiday Hotel in Dongxing Town, Dongxing City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. After the transaction between the two was completed, it was discovered by public security personnel that Wang was caught on the spot, and public security personnel seized 2.48 grams of ketamine from him. During his escape, Mo Jinyou held a pistol he was carrying and fired towards the direction pursued by the police. He then discarded 5.23 grams of methamphetamine and 0.79 grams of ketamine he was carrying in the roadside green belt. Mo Jinyou was caught trying to block a car at an intersection when he fled. Public security personnel seized one pistol and three bullets from him on the spot.

【 Judgment result 】

This case was first instance by the People's Court of Dongxing City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, and second instance by the Intermediate People's Court of Fangchenggang City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region.

The court believes that the defendant Mo Jinyou's trafficking in methamphetamine and ketamine constitutes a crime of drug trafficking. During the process of committing the crime of drug trafficking, Mo Jinyou carried a gun with him and shot at public security personnel. His behavior falls under the category of armed cover for drug trafficking as stipulated in Article 347 (2) (3) of the Criminal Law and should be punished in accordance with the law. Based on this, the defendant Mo Jinyou was sentenced to 15 years in prison and confiscation of property of RMB 20000 in accordance with the law.

The above judgment took legal effect on December 4, 2015.

Typical significance

In recent years, cases of drug criminals carrying firearms, ammunition, and explosives to cover up crimes have repeatedly occurred in the process of smuggling, trafficking, transporting, and manufacturing drugs. Especially in border areas such as Guangxi and Yunnan, cases of "gun drug combination" are on the rise. Armed cover up for drug crimes not only greatly increases the risk of law enforcement agencies cracking down on drug crimes, but also poses a threat to social security and the safety of people's lives and property, reflecting the deeper subjective malignancy and greater personal danger of criminals. Therefore, Article 347 (2) (3) of the Criminal Law stipulates that if a criminal engages in "armed cover up smuggling, trafficking, transportation, or manufacturing of drugs", regardless of the quantity of drugs, they shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of not less than fifteen years. This case is a typical case of drug traffickers carrying firearms and ammunition to cover up drug crimes. The defendant Mo Jinyou sold a small amount of drugs, but carried firearms and ammunition with him during the drug transaction and shot at the chasing public security personnel. Although no casualties were caused, he should still be considered as an armed cover for drug trafficking. The people's court, based on the facts and circumstances of his crime, sentenced him to fifteen years in prison and confiscated some of his personal property in accordance with the law, reflecting the strict punishment of armed cover drug crimes in accordance with the law.

7、 Lin Kunwu's Drug Trafficking Case

Repeatedly selling drugs in small packages, and being a recidivist or a repeat drug offender, will be severely punished in accordance with the law

Basic Case

The defendant Lin Kunwu, male, Han nationality, was born on July 8, 1968, unemployed. On January 5, 2009, he was sentenced to one year and two months in prison for committing theft and was also fined RMB 8000; On January 28, 2011, he was sentenced to 11 months in prison and fined RMB 1000 for the crime of drug trafficking; On November 7, 2012, he was sentenced to one year and one month in prison for the crime of drug trafficking and fined RMB 2000. He was released after serving his sentence on July 3, 2013.

The defendant Lin Kunwu sold a total of 0.7 grams of heroin to drug users multiple times at his home in Tongling Town, Dongshan County, Fujian Province. On November 12 and 27, 2014, Lin Kunwu sold heroin to drug user Hong twice at home, with a dose of 0.1 grams each time; On the 13th and 27th of the same month, Lin Kunwu sold heroin to drug user Chen Moumou twice at home, each time 0.1g; On the 25th, 26th, and 27th of the same month, Lin Kunwu sold heroin to drug user He Moumou three times at home, each time 0.1g. On the 27th of the same month, public security personnel arrested Lin Kunwu at his home and seized 0.7 grams of heroin from the living room on the spot.

【 Judgment result 】

This case was first instance by the People's Court of Dongshan County, Fujian Province, and second instance by the Intermediate People's Court of Zhangzhou City, Fujian Province.

The court believes that the defendant Lin Kunwu's act of selling heroin constitutes the crime of drug trafficking. Lin Kunwu has repeatedly sold drugs to multiple people, and the criminal circumstances are serious. He has been sentenced for the crime of drug trafficking and committed the crime of drug trafficking again within five years after the completion of the sentence. He is a recidivist and a repeat drug offender, and should be given heavier punishment according to law. Based on this, the defendant Lin Kunwu was sentenced to four years and eight months in prison in accordance with the law, and a fine of RMB 3000 was also imposed.

The above judgment took legal effect on October 29, 2015.

Typical significance

In recent years, due to the continuous expansion of the drug consumption market, the number of drug trafficking cases involving small packages of less than 10 grams has grown rapidly, and such cases account for a high proportion of drug trafficking cases and even all drug crime cases. Zero package drug trafficking is the terminal link of drug crimes, directly leading to the entry of drugs into the field of consumption and consumption, and the social harm cannot be ignored. Therefore, cracking down on the crime of small package drug trafficking is an important means to effectively curb the spread of the drug problem and the growth of drug crimes. In this case, the defendant Lin Kunwu sold only 0.1 grams of heroin each time, totaling 1.4 grams. Although the quantity was relatively small, he repeatedly sold drugs to multiple drug users, which has significant social harm. According to relevant judicial interpretations, his criminal behavior falls under the category of "serious circumstances" stipulated in Article 347 (4) of the Criminal Law, and shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years in accordance with the law. Lin Kunwu has three criminal records and has been sentenced twice for drug trafficking. He still refuses to repent and sells drugs, with a deeper subjective malignancy. The people's court, based on the facts of his crime and the circumstances of his involvement in recidivism and drug recidivism, imposed a heavier punishment on him within the statutory sentencing range, effectively implementing the criminal policy of cracking down on terminal drug crimes.

8、 Gao Feng's Case of Allowing Others to Take Drugs

Entertainment venue managers allow multiple people to use drugs and severely punish them in accordance with the law

Basic Case

The defendant, Gao Feng, male, Han nationality, was born on June 20, 1977 and is the manager of Dongfang Star Club in Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai City, Guangdong Province.

On October 16, 2014, the defendant Gao Feng was employed as the manager of Dongfang Star Club at No. 4017 Nanwan South Road, Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai City, responsible for the comprehensive work of the club's operation, booking, and so on. At around 0:00 on December 1st of the same year, Gao Feng, even though he knew that a guest was about to take drugs in the club, still provided two rooms for entertainment consumption. At around 3:00 pm on the same day, public security personnel found 55 drug users in two rooms of the club. At around 16:00 that day, Gao Feng was arrested and brought to justice.

【 Judgment result 】

This case was first instance by the People's Court of Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai City, Guangdong Province, and second instance by the Intermediate People's Court of Zhuhai City.

The court believes that the defendant Gao Feng's behavior of allowing others to take drugs constitutes the crime of allowing others to take drugs. After Gao Feng was brought to justice, he truthfully confessed his crime and had a good attitude of confession. He can be given a lighter punishment according to the law. Based on this, the defendant Gao Feng was sentenced to two years in prison and a fine of RMB 50000 in accordance with the law.

The above judgment took legal effect on June 26, 2015.

Typical significance

In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in cases of drug abuse committed by accommodating others. Among them, there are cases where operators and managers of some entertainment venues allow others to take drugs in order to attract business. This case is a typical case of entertainment venue managers allowing multiple people to take drugs. The defendant Gao Feng, as the manager of the entertainment venue involved in the case, was aware that there were customers who wanted to take drugs in his club room. However, in order to increase business income, he still provided a place for others to take drugs and allowed 55 people to take drugs at once. The criminal circumstances were heinous. The people's court shall punish him severely according to the nature, circumstances, and consequences of his crime. This case warns the operators and managers of entertainment venues to seriously abide by national drug control laws and regulations, strictly implement drug prevention measures, and prevent drug related crimes from happening in their own venues. If any drug related illegal activities are found in the entertainment venue, they should immediately report to the public security organs and never allow others to take drugs for the purpose of soliciting business or obstructing the situation. It is everyone's responsibility to ban drugs. As operators and managers of public places, we should enhance our sense of responsibility in preventing and rejecting drugs.

9、 Robbery cases involving Li Guisong and others

Conspiracy to obtain drug funds for robbery and the use of minors to commit crimes shall be severely punished in accordance with the law

Basic Case

The defendant, Li Guisong, male, Han nationality, was born on September 17, 1990 and is a farmer.

Defendant Wang Hong, male, Han nationality, born on October 5, 1990, is a farmer.

The defendant Li Guisong is a drug user and has no legitimate source of income. In order to seek money, Li Guisong, along with the defendant Wang Hong, instructed female minors such as Yang and Ding to lure prostitutes into hiding and commit robbery under the guise of soliciting prostitution. On the evening of May 31, 2015, Yang and Ding solicited prostitution in a park in Dali City, Yunnan Province. Later, Ding took the victim Zhang to the entrance of a residential unit building in Xiaguan Town, that city. Ding contacted Li Guisong by phone, and after Li Guisong, Wang Hong, and others arrived, they used violent means to rob Zhang of over 1500 yuan in cash.

【 Judgment result 】

This case is being tried by the People's Court of Dali City, Yunnan Province.

The court believes that the defendants Li Guisong and Wang Hong used violent means to rob others' property for the purpose of illegal possession, and their actions constituted the crime of robbery. In the joint crime, Li Guisong and Wang Hong conspired to commit robbery, gathered minors to participate in the crime, and actively carried out robbery, all playing a major role. They are the main offenders, and both should be punished according to all the crimes they participated in. Based on this, the defendants Li Guisong and Wang Hong were sentenced to four years in prison and fined RMB 2000 in accordance with the law.

After the judgment was pronounced, there was no appeal or protest within the statutory period, and the above judgment took legal effect on April 19, 2016.

Typical significance

The cost of taking drugs is enormous, and it is difficult to quit and the proportion of relapse is high. Once infected with drugs, it is like stepping on a "no return path", causing some drug users to lose their homes and break down their families. Some drug users also try their best to obtain drug purchase funds and take risks. In recent years, there has been an increasing trend in cases where drug users without income sources commit crimes such as robbery and theft to obtain drug funds. In this case, the defendant Li Guisong is a drug addict who conspired with others to commit robbery through sexual inducement in order to raise drug funds and living expenses, and used female minors to commit crimes. Eventually, he was severely punished by the law. A minor named Yang is a rural migrant worker. After meeting Li Guisong, he was tempted and deceived by Li to start taking drugs. At Li's instigation, he also participated in robbery and embarked on a path of illegal crime. Minors are not yet well versed in society, have weak abilities to resist temptation and distinguish right from wrong, and are easily influenced by negative factors around them and become addicted to bad habits. Yang's experience fully demonstrates the special harm of drugs to minors, which has sounded an alarm for the majority of minors and parents. I hope that the general public, especially teenagers, can deeply understand the warning effect of this case, consciously stay away from drugs, and resist the harm of drugs.

10、 Case of Chen Xuejian Using Dangerous Methods to Harm Public Safety

Driving a motor vehicle after taking drugs endangers public safety, surrendering oneself, and being punished in accordance with the law

Basic Case

The defendant Chen Xuejian, male, Han nationality, was born on February 29, 1984 and is a self-employed household.

On March 20, 2015, the defendant Chen Xuejian stopped at a highway service area while driving and smoked drugs. At around 23:00 on the same day, Chen Xuejian was driving to Quyang Road and Zhongshan North Second Road in Shanghai when he encountered police officers setting up checkpoints for routine inspection. Chen Xuejian refused to accept the inspection and forcibly drove through the card to escape. Public security personnel then drove a police car to intercept him. Chen Xuejian drove continuously through red lights, drove rapidly in the opposite direction of the non motorized lane, collided with the road barrier, and cut down a pedestrian. When he fled to Guangling Second Road near the intersection of Guangji Road, the police car that was chased by him collided and did not stop. He abandoned the car and ran away after smashing the glass wall of a bakery. The next day, Chen Xuejian surrendered to the public security organs.

【 Judgment result 】

This case is being tried by the People's Court of Hongkou District, Shanghai.

The court believes that the defendant, Chen Xuejian, drove illegally after taking drugs, endangering the personal and property safety of the unspecified majority, and his behavior has constituted the crime of endangering public safety through dangerous means. After Chen Xuejian committed the crime, he voluntarily surrendered and truthfully confessed the facts of the crime, which constitutes voluntary surrender and can be given a lighter punishment in accordance with the law. Based on this, the defendant Chen Xuejian was sentenced to three years and six months in prison in accordance with the law.

After the judgment was pronounced, there was no appeal or protest within the statutory period, and the above judgment took legal effect on September 18, 2015.

Typical significance

Drug use seriously endangers the physical and mental health of drug users. Some drugs, due to their excitatory and hallucinogenic effects, can affect the driving ability of drug users after consumption, causing them to experience symptoms such as perceptual misalignment, inability to concentrate, and hallucinations and auditory hallucinations. Therefore, driving a motor vehicle after taking drugs is highly likely to cause accidents and disasters due to uncontrolled driving behavior. Such cases have occurred multiple times in recent years. This case is a typical case where driving a motor vehicle after taking drugs poses a threat to public safety. The defendant, Chen Xuejian, entered the urban area of Shanghai after taking drugs. During the inspection, he forcibly ran through the card, continuously violated the rules, hit public facilities, scraped pedestrians, and damaged others' property. His behavior seriously affected traffic safety and caused damage to the personal and property rights of the unspecified majority. The People's Court has lawfully determined that Chen Xuejian's behavior constitutes a crime of endangering public safety through dangerous means. However, considering his voluntary surrender, he was given a lighter punishment, which better reflects the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity.