人民法院人民检察院刑事赔偿典型案例

目录

1.程锡华申请大观区人民法院再审无罪国家赔偿案

2.蒙庆争申请青秀区人民检察院无罪逮捕国家赔偿案3.朱升机申请徐闻县人民检察院无罪逮捕国家赔偿案

4.胡电杰申请濮阳市中级人民法院重审无罪国家赔偿案

5．杨素琴、王有申申请辽中县人民检察院刑事违法扣押国家赔偿案

6.陈伟国、刘钱德申请桐庐县公安局违法刑事拘留国家赔偿案

7.黄兴申请福建省高级人民法院再审无罪国家赔偿案

8.滕德刚申请吉林省四平监狱违法不作为国家赔偿案

案例1

程锡华申请大观区人民法院再审无罪国家赔偿案

（一）案情摘要

2006年4月27日，安徽省安庆机床有限公司原董事长、总经理程锡华因涉嫌贪污罪被安庆市大观区人民检察院刑事拘留，同年5月11日被决定逮捕，同月30日被取保侯审。2007年7月31日，大观区人民法院认定程锡华犯职务侵占罪，判决免予刑事处罚。程锡华未提出上诉，判决生效。2011年7月6日，安庆市中级人民法院再审判决程锡华无罪。

（二）处理结果

程锡华以无罪被羁押34天为由，向大观区人民法院提出国家赔偿申请，大观区人民法院逾期未作决定。程锡华向安庆市中级人民法院赔偿委员会申请作出赔偿决定。2014年7月23日，安庆市中级人民法院赔偿委员会以大观区人民法院判决免予刑事处罚，未实际侵犯人身自由权为由，决定驳回程锡华的国家赔偿申请。程锡华向安庆市人民检察院提出赔偿监督申请。安庆市人民检察院认为该国家赔偿决定书适用法律错误，遂提请安徽省人民检察院依法监督。2015年6月19日，安徽省人民检察院依据国家赔偿法第三十条第三款之规定，向安徽省高级人民法院赔偿委员会提出重新审查意见。2015年9月6日，安徽省高级人民法院赔偿委员会作出赔偿决定：撤销安庆市中级人民法院赔偿委员会的国家赔偿决定；安庆市大观区人民法院支付程锡华人身自由赔偿金7470.48元；安庆市大观区人民法院在侵权影响范围内，为程锡华恢复名誉，并支付精神损害抚慰金1200元。

（三）典型意义

本案是关于赔偿义务机关后置设定的案件。本案中，安庆市中级人民法院赔偿委员会作出决定时，仅评价免予刑事处罚未实际侵犯程锡华人身自由权，未对前期的拘留、逮捕羁押行为进行评价，不符合国家赔偿法第二十一条确定的后置吸收赔偿原则。安徽省人民检察院依法提出监督意见，安徽省高级人民法院赔偿委员会依法纠正原违法不当的赔偿决定，维护了赔偿请求人程锡华的合法权益，实现了较好的法律效果和社会效果。

案例2

蒙庆争申请青秀区人民检察院无罪逮捕国家赔偿案

（一）案情摘要

2013年4月5日，蒙庆争因涉嫌盗窃罪被南宁市公安局南湖分局刑事拘留，同月28日，被南宁市青秀区人民检察院批准逮捕。同年6月27日，南宁市公安局南湖分局移送青秀区人民检察院审查起诉。2014年1月9日，青秀区人民检察院以事实不清、证据不足为由，依据刑事诉讼法第一百七十一条第四款的规定，决定对蒙庆争不起诉。

（二）处理结果

2014年2月8日，蒙庆争以无罪逮捕被错误关押为由，向青秀区人民检察院提出国家赔偿申请。青秀区人民检察院认为，蒙庆争在审查批捕阶段做了虚假供述，承认其在公安机关所作供述是真实的，导致作出批捕决定，属于国家赔偿法第十九条第一款规定的情形，决定不予赔偿。蒙庆争向南宁市人民检察院提出复议。2014年6月13日，南宁市人民检察院作出复议决定，认为公安机关提取证据存在瑕疵，在此期间蒙庆争所作的有罪供述应予排除，不应认定为其故意作虚假供述，蒙庆争请求赔偿的事项属于国家赔偿法第十七条第二款规定的赔偿范围；决定撤销青秀区人民检察院刑事赔偿决定书，青秀区人民检察院支付蒙庆争人身自由赔偿金55992.51元。

（三）典型意义

本案是关于免责条款适用的国家赔偿案件。本案中，赔偿请求人蒙庆争提出赔偿申请后，赔偿义务机关南宁市青秀区人民检察院认为，蒙庆争在审查批捕阶段做了虚假有罪供述，导致作出批捕决定，属于国家赔偿法第十九条第一项规定的情形。上述认定忽视了有罪供述与故意作虚伪供述在认识因素和意志因素等方面的重要区别。即，青秀区人民检察院不能把曾经作过有罪供述一概认定为故意作虚伪供述，只有查明行为人主观上确实出于故意，并作出了与客观真相相反的供述，才能依法认定为故意作虚伪供述。在实践中，赔偿义务机关主张依据国家赔偿法第十九条第一项的情形免除赔偿责任的，应当就该免责事由的成立承担举证责任。

案例3

朱升机申请徐闻县人民检察院无罪逮捕国家赔偿案

（一）案情摘要

2012年7月17日，朱升机因涉嫌故意伤害罪被徐闻县公安局刑事拘留，同月27日被徐闻县人民检察院批准逮捕。同年8月3日，徐闻县公安局将该案移送徐闻县人民检察院审查起诉，同月20日，徐闻县人民检察院向徐闻县人民法院提起公诉。2013年1月10日，徐闻县人民检察院撤回起诉，同月11日，徐闻县人民法院裁定准许徐闻人民检察院撤回起诉，同月21日，徐闻县公安局向徐闻县人民检察院申请撤回该案，同月22日，徐闻县人民检察院同意徐闻县公安局撤回案件。同年2月8日，徐闻县公安局对朱升机变更强制措施为取保候审。

（二）处理结果

2014年7月17日，朱升机向徐闻县人民检察院提出国家赔偿申请，认为该院违法行使职权，对其合法权益造成损害。同月21日，徐闻县人民检察院以公安机关尚未撤销朱升机涉嫌故意伤害案，刑事诉讼程序未终结，不符合国家赔偿立案条件为由，决定不予立案。同年10月13日，朱升机向湛江市人民检察院申请复议。2014年12月12日，湛江市人民检察院作出复议决定，认为根据《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则（试行）》第459条的规定，徐闻县人民检察院以“事实、证据有变化”为由向徐闻县人民法院撤回对朱升机涉嫌故意伤害罪一案的起诉，应当在撤回起诉后三十日以内对朱升机作出不起诉决定。徐闻县人民检察院逾期没有依法对朱升机作出不起诉决定，根据法律规定，可视为本案刑事诉讼程序已经终结。徐闻县人民检察院认为本案刑事诉讼程序尚未终结，朱升机的赔偿申请不符合国家赔偿条件的决定不当；并决定徐闻县人民检察院支付朱升机人身自由赔偿金41542.83元；徐闻县人民检察院在侵权行为影响的范围内，为朱升机消除影响、恢复名誉、赔礼道歉。

（三）典型意义

本案是关于认定撤回起诉后终止追究刑事责任的国家赔偿案件。本案中，赔偿请求人朱升机被变更强制措施为取保候审，期满后超过一年多的时间，原案仍未依法作出终结性结论，导致不能启动国家赔偿程序。复议机关湛江市人民检察院依法认定原案刑事诉讼程序已视为终结，并及时作出复议决定，保障了赔偿请求人依法取得国家赔偿的权利，对于规范执法行为也发挥了积极的引导和促进作用。案件处理符合此次发布的《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理刑事赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》精神。

案例4

胡电杰申请濮阳市中级人民法院重审无罪国家赔偿案

（一）案情摘要

胡电杰因涉嫌故意杀人罪于2002年3月23日被刑事拘留，同年4月17日被逮捕。在检察机关提起公诉后，濮阳市中级人民法院（下称濮阳中院）以犯故意杀人罪四次判处胡电杰死刑、缓期二年执行，但均被二审法院撤销原判，发回重审。在第四次重审期间，检察机关于2010年12月29日决定撤回起诉，濮阳中院裁定予以准许。获准撤诉后，检察机关又将案件退回公安机关补充侦查，公安机关随即将胡电杰释放并变更强制措施为监视居住。2011年7月19日监视居住期满后，胡电杰未再被采取强制措施，实际被羁押3225天。

（二）处理结果

胡电杰于2011年12月13日向濮阳中级法院申请国家赔偿，该院不予受理。胡电杰向河南省高级人民法院赔偿委员会申请作出国家赔偿决定，该院赔偿委员会认为刑事案件发回重审过程中，检察机关撤回起诉后，没有在法定期限内再行起诉的，赔偿请求人有权依法申请国家赔偿，据此决定撤销濮阳中院不予受理案件通知，指令该院予以受理。濮阳中院受理后认为，“申请刑事赔偿要以刑事诉讼程序终结为先决条件……胡电杰是在刑事诉讼程序中因羁押期限内不能结案被释放，并因其案件不能在法定期限内办结，需要继续侦查被监视居住，后因监视居住期间届满又被解除监视居住，不能确认胡电杰所涉及的刑事案件程序已经终结，也不能确认胡电杰与其涉及的刑事案件无关。胡电杰不符合申请国家赔偿的条件。”据此，该院于2013年3月21日作出（2012）濮中法赔字第3号决定，驳回胡电杰的国家赔偿申请。胡电杰再次申请河南省高级人民法院赔偿委员会作出国家赔偿决定，该院赔偿委员会审理后于2015年11月16日作出决定：一、撤销濮阳中院（2012）濮中法赔字第3号决定书；二、濮阳中院按照2014年度国家职工日平均工资标准（219.72元）赔偿胡电杰被羁押3225天的赔偿金70.8597万元；三、濮阳中院赔偿胡电杰精神损害抚慰金15万元；四、濮阳中院在胡电杰户籍所在乡以公告形式为其消除影响、恢复名誉、赔礼道歉。

（三）典型意义

本案是关于发回重审后被认定构成终止追究刑事责任情形的国家赔偿案件。本案中，胡电杰因涉嫌故意杀人罪被刑事拘留、逮捕，四次被以犯故意杀人罪判处死刑、缓期二年执行，但均被二审法院撤销原判，发回重审。在第四次重审期间，检察机关撤回起诉获得准许后，又将案件退回公安机关补充侦查，公安机关随后将胡电杰释放并变更强制措施为监视居住，监视居住期满后也未再采取强制措施。从保护公民合法权益的宗旨出发，重审期间濮阳中院准许检察机关撤回对胡电杰的起诉，此后检察机关长达数年未重新起诉，应认定为对胡电杰的刑事诉讼程序已经终结，胡电杰有权申请国家赔偿。濮阳中院处理自赔案件中以“不能确认胡电杰所涉及的刑事案件程序已经终结，也不能确认胡电杰与其涉及的刑事案件无关”为由驳回胡电杰的赔偿申请，使胡电杰陷入刑事案件终结无期，申请赔偿受理无望的程序困境。河南省高级人民法院对此予以纠正，为遭遇程序梗阻不能获得国家赔偿的公民提供了有效的程序救济和权利保障，与《司法解释》关于认定“属于终止追究刑事责任情形”的规定一致，体现了国家赔偿法救济权利、保障人权、规范公权的立法精神。

案例5

杨素琴、王有申申请辽中县人民检察院刑事违法扣押国家赔偿案

（一）案情摘要

1992年7、8月间,王守成（已故，系共同赔偿请求人杨素琴的丈夫、王有申的父亲。）与辽中县肖寨门供销社口头达成承包经营该社废旧物收购站的协议，双方约定了经营范围、方式、纳税及利润分配等问题，明确由辽宁省辽中县肖寨门供销社提供经营执照及银行账户，其后王守成按约定交纳了销售额的3%。1993年4月3日，辽宁省辽中县人民检察院(以下简称辽中县检察院)以王守成涉嫌偷税为由对其刑事拘留，同月17日决定对其取保候审并予以释放。王守成被限制人身自由15天。经辽中县检察院委托沈阳市税务咨询事务所鉴定，认定王守成属无证经营，其行为构成偷税。1994年3月3日，辽中县人民检察院向辽中县人民法院提起公诉。同年6月6日，辽中县人民法院以事实不清、证据不足为由，退回辽中县人民检察院补充侦查。经补充侦查，辽中县检察院认为王守成不是独立纳税人，非纳税主体，纳税申报应是作为企业法人的供销社的义务，因此王守成不能被认为无证经营，亦不构成偷税罪，决定撤销此案。王守成向辽中县人民检察院申请退回收缴的税款，该院以已经上缴税务机关为由不予退还。2007年7月13日，王守成病故。其后，王守成的妻子杨素琴作为王守成的继承人向辽中县检察院申请国家赔偿。另，王守成涉嫌偷税案侦办过程中，辽中县人民检察院先后三次从辽中县肖寨门供销社账户扣划的125681元为王守成所有。辽中县检察院先后七次共扣押、扣划王守成168681元，除去退还7500元，共有161181元未返还。

（二）处理结果

辽中县检察院作出辽检刑赔字【2012】1号刑事赔偿决定，决定返还扣押的税款47500元；赔偿王守成被羁押期间的误工费2439.75元。杨素琴不服，向沈阳市人民检察院申请复议，沈阳市人民检察院逾期未作决定，杨素琴遂向沈阳市中级人民法院赔偿委员会申请作出赔偿决定。该院作出（2013）沈中委赔字第4号决定，维持辽中县检察院赔偿王守成被羁押期间的误工费2439.75元、返还扣押的税款47500元的决定；增加返还杨素琴47500元的利息和精神损害抚慰金1000元。杨素琴向辽宁省高级人民法院提出申诉，辽宁省高级人民法院赔偿委员会（2013）辽法委赔监字第30号驳回申诉通知驳回了杨素琴申诉。其后，最高人民法院赔偿委员会作出（2014）赔监字第25号决定,决定对本案进行直接审理，并作出（2014）赔监字第25号国家赔偿决定，维持辽中县检察院赔偿王守成人身自由赔偿金2439.75元和精神损害抚慰金1000元的决定；决定由辽中县检察院赔偿杨素琴、王有申161181元及利息。

（三）典型意义

本案是关于刑事违法扣押赔偿的案件。辽中县检察院在侦查王守成偷税案时扣押了其钱款，后因不构成偷税罪而撤销案件，但当时划扣的钱款一直未予返还。此种情形，即刑事案件终结后，办案机关不予返还扣押财产，属于国家赔偿法第十八条规定的侵犯财产权的刑事赔偿范围。本案检察机关以收缴的财产已上缴税务机关为由不予返还，理由不能成立。本案的处理，与《司法解释》第三条的规定精神相一致，体现了国家赔偿法保护合法财产权利的权利救济法本质，也体现了规范公权力行使的国家治理功能。

案例6

陈伟国、刘钱德申请桐庐县公安局违法刑事拘留国家赔偿案

（一）案情摘要

2010年10月1日晚，原浙江省桐庐县金大笔业有限公司董事长杨永平因行车问题，在其公司大门口与桐庐县分水镇胡群力等人发生纠纷。双方因口角不合，从言语争执发展到肢体冲突。杨永平叫来员工叶林华、陈伟国、刘钱德等人，对胡群力等人进行滋事殴打。经鉴定，胡群力等人被殴打致轻伤、轻微伤不等。2010年10月2日，陈伟国、刘钱德因涉嫌殴打他人被传唤至桐庐县公安局分水派出所。10月3日，桐庐县公安局将杨永平等人寻衅滋事行为刑事立案，并于同日决定对陈伟国、刘钱德刑事拘留。2010年10月6日，桐庐县公安局在进一步侦查后，以证据不足为由解除对陈伟国、刘钱德的刑事强制措施，并撤销对二人的刑事立案。

（二）处理结果

杭州市中级人民法院赔偿委员会经审理认为，根据《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百九十三条之规定，寻衅滋事罪的客观要件为：“（一）随意殴打他人，情节恶劣的；……”据此规定，情节恶劣的殴打他人的行为构成寻衅滋事罪。根据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第六十一条（注：修正后为第八十条）第（二）项之规定，公安机关对于现行犯或者重大嫌疑分子，如果有被害人或者在场亲眼看见的人指认他犯罪的，可以先行刑事拘留，即先行拘留须以被拘留人系现行犯或重大嫌疑分子为前提。本案中，陈伟国、刘钱德不属于上述情形，因而桐庐县公安局将陈伟国、刘钱德刑事拘留主要证据不足，该刑事拘留决定违反了《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》的规定，应当承担赔偿责任。决定：一、分别撤销赔偿义务机关桐庐县公安局的刑事赔偿决定和杭州市公安局的刑事赔偿复议决定。二、赔偿义务机关桐庐县公安局赔偿侵犯陈伟国、刘钱德人身自由权4天的赔偿金。

（三）典型意义

本案是关于违法刑事拘留审查判断标准的国家赔偿案件。人民法院赔偿委员会在审查判断刑事拘留决定是否违法时，既要对办案机关采取强制措施的程序是否合法进行审查，也要对采取该强制措施的条件是否合法进行实质审查。根据刑事诉讼法的规定，公安机关对于现行犯或者重大嫌疑分子，如果有被害人或者在场亲眼看见的人指认他犯罪的，可以先行拘留。本案中，人民法院赔偿委员会经实质审查，认为陈伟国、刘钱德不属于现行犯或重大嫌疑分子，桐庐县公安局将陈伟国、刘钱德刑事拘留主要证据不足，该刑事拘留决定违反了刑事诉讼法规定的条件。据此，受害人有取得国家赔偿的权利。

案例7

黄兴申请福建省高级人民法院再审无罪国家赔偿案

（一）案情摘要

1998年3月2日，福建省福州市人民检察院指控黄兴等人犯绑架罪、非法拘禁罪，向福建省福州市中级人民法院(以下简称福州中院)提起公诉。福州中院于1998年11月6日及2000年4月11日两次作出有罪判决。经福建省高级人民法院两次裁定发回重审，福州中院于2002年8月22日作出刑事附带民事判决，认定黄兴犯绑架罪，判处死刑，缓期二年执行，犯非法拘禁罪，判处有期徒刑三年，合并决定执行死刑，缓期二年执行。2006年11月25日，福建省高级人民法院作出刑事附带民事裁定，驳回上诉，维持原判。因被告人及其亲属申诉，福建省高级人民法院经审查后提起再审。2015年5月29日，福建省高级人民法院作出（2015）闽刑再终字第3号刑事附带民事判决，认定黄兴、不构成绑架罪，判决：一、维持原审关于非法拘禁罪部分的判决，即原审被告人黄兴犯非法拘禁罪，判处有期徒刑三年；二、撤销原审关于绑架罪部分的判决。黄兴于当日被释放。其后，黄兴以再审无罪为由，提出国家赔偿申请。

自1996年6月2日被羁押至2015年5月29日获释，黄兴共被完全限制人身自由6936天。扣除其因非法拘禁罪被判处的三年刑期后，其被完全限制人身自由天数为5841天。

（二）处理结果

在国家赔偿案件办理过程中，福建省高级人民法院与赔偿请求人黄兴就其提出的国家赔偿申请事项多次进行协商，通过协商，黄兴对国家赔偿的法定性、抚慰性表示理解与认同，对福建省高级人民法院在协调过程中进行的赔礼道歉，亦表示接受。为此，双方依法达成赔偿协议。福建省高级人民法院决定支付黄兴人身自由赔偿金1283384.52元，精神损害抚慰金580000元，共计1863384.52元，并在侵权行为影响的范围内为黄兴消除影响，恢复名誉。

（三）典型意义

本案是关于数罪并罚中个罪被改判无罪的国家赔偿案件。本案中，福建省高级人民法院的刑事附带民事判决，维持原审关于非法拘禁罪部分的判决，撤销原审关于绑架罪部分的判决。《中华人民共和国国家赔偿法》第十七条第三项规定，依照审判监督程序再审改判无罪，原判刑罚已经执行的，受害人有取得赔偿的权利。这一规定应理解为是针对具体个罪而言的，黄兴绑架罪被撤销，应当认定为属于再审改判无罪。因监禁期限超出再审判决确定的刑期，黄兴对超期监禁部分有取得国家赔偿的权利。

案例8

滕德刚申请吉林省四平监狱违法不作为国家赔偿案

（一）案情摘要

赔偿请求人滕德刚因犯盗窃、抢劫罪于1996年被判处有期徒刑16年，后在四平监狱服刑。1999年12月30日，滕德刚与吴占海、刘显新、孟凡友（均为服刑人员）四人被临时安排组成一个相互监督的互包组，在该监区内的水泥生产加工场地做推煤工作。其间，滕德刚等三人与吴占海因发生口角。后四人擅离岗位到主控室休息。当日5时左右，吴占海趁滕德刚等三人熟睡之机，拿起室内砸煤用的铁钎，向滕德刚等三人头部连续击打数下，发现三人没有反应后，认为三人已死亡，遂从该二楼窗外铁梯爬到楼顶欲跳楼自杀。当日5时许，三人被发现受伤，，四平监狱管教员及其他监狱管理人员赶到现场后，组织对伤员进行了救治，并于当日22时45分，将吴占海抓获。滕德刚后经吉林三源司法鉴定所鉴定为：脑软化灶形成左侧肢体偏瘫，肌力四级，属七级伤残；颅脑缺损160平方厘米，属九级伤残。修复颅骨费用约5，620元至21，000元之间属合理。后吴占海被四平市中级人民法院以故意杀人罪判处死刑。

（二）处理结果

吉林省高级人民法院赔偿委员会审理认为，本案四平监狱劳动现场存在安全问题，监狱干警监管措施不到位，根据相关规定结合本案案情，可以确定四平监狱在监管上存在一定的不作为情形。根据国家赔偿法及相关规定，四平监狱应当承担一定比例的赔偿责任。因本案中滕德刚所受伤害系吴占海直接造成，另滕德刚在受伤前亦随同其他服刑人员擅自脱离推煤岗位，其自身亦有一定违规之处，故根据本案具体情况，吉林省高级人民法院赔偿委员会确定由四平监狱承担30%的监管不作为责任。决定由四平监狱向赔偿请求人滕德刚支付国家赔偿款总计人民币136519.11元。

（三）典型意义

本案是关于监狱管理机关怠于履行职责而承担国家赔偿责任的案件。监狱管理机关对其看管的服刑人员，具有法定的监管职责，如其怠于行使该职责，造成服刑人员的损害，即使损害系其他服刑人员的加害行为直接造成，监狱管理机关亦应就其不作为行为对造成损害结果所起的作用，结合其过错程度，承担一定比例的国家赔偿责任。

Typical Cases of Criminal Compensation by People's Courts and People's Procuratorates

catalogue

1. Cheng Xihua's application to the Daguan District People's Court for retrial of the innocent state compensation case

2. Meng Qing's Application for National Compensation for Innocent Arrest by Qingxiu District People's Procuratorate 3. Zhu Shengji's Application for National Compensation for Innocent Arrest by Xuwen County People's Procuratorate

4. Hu Dianjie applied for a retrial of the innocent state compensation case by the Intermediate People's Court of Puyang City

5. Yang Suqin and Wang Youshen applied to the People's Procuratorate of Liaozhong County for criminal and illegal seizure of state compensation

6. Chen Weiguo and Liu Qiande's Application for National Compensation for Illegal Criminal Detention by Tonglu County Public Security Bureau

7. Huang Xing's application for retrial of the innocent state compensation case by the Fujian Provincial Higher People's Court

8. Teng Degang applied for national compensation for illegal inaction in Siping Prison, Jilin Province

Case 1

Cheng Xihua's Application to the Daguan District People's Court for Retrial of the Case of Innocent State Compensation

（1） Summary of the case

On April 27, 2006, Cheng Xihua, the former chairman and general manager of Anhui Anqing Machine Tool Co., Ltd., was criminally detained by the Daguan District People's Procuratorate of Anqing City on suspicion of corruption. He was arrested on May 11 of the same year and released on bail for trial on May 30 of the same year. On July 31, 2007, the Daguan District People's Court determined that Cheng Xihua had committed the crime of embezzlement and exempted him from criminal punishment. Cheng Xihua did not file an appeal and the judgment came into effect. On July 6, 2011, the Intermediate People's Court of Anqing City ruled in a retrial that Cheng Xihua was not guilty.

（2） Processing results

Cheng Xihua filed a national compensation application with the Daguan District People's Court, citing his innocence and being detained for 34 days. However, the Daguan District People's Court did not make a decision within the time limit. Cheng Xihua applied to the Compensation Committee of the Intermediate People's Court of Anqing City for a compensation decision. On July 23, 2014, the Compensation Commission of the Intermediate People's Court of Anqing City decided to reject Cheng Xihua's national compensation application on the grounds that the People's Court of Daguan District had exempted him from criminal punishment and had not actually violated his right to personal freedom. Cheng Xihua submitted an application for compensation supervision to the People's Procuratorate of Anqing City. The People's Procuratorate of Anqing City believes that the application of law in the national compensation decision is incorrect, and therefore requests the Anhui Provincial People's Procuratorate to supervise in accordance with the law. On June 19, 2015, the Anhui Provincial People's Procuratorate submitted a re examination opinion to the Compensation Committee of the Anhui Higher People's Court in accordance with Article 30, Paragraph 3 of the National Compensation Law. On September 6, 2015, the Compensation Commission of the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province made a compensation decision: to revoke the national compensation decision of the Compensation Commission of the Intermediate People's Court of Anqing City; The People's Court of Daguan District, Anqing City paid a personal freedom compensation of 7470.48 yuan to Cheng Xihua; The People's Court of Daguan District, Anqing City, restored Cheng Xihua's reputation within the scope of infringement and paid a compensation of 1200 yuan for mental damage.

（3） Typical significance

This case is about the post establishment of compensation obligation organs. In this case, when the Compensation Committee of the Intermediate People's Court of Anqing City made a decision, it only evaluated the exemption from criminal punishment and did not actually infringe on Cheng Xihua's right to personal freedom, and did not evaluate the previous detention, arrest, and detention behavior, which does not comply with the principle of post collection compensation determined in Article 21 of the National Compensation Law. The People's Procuratorate of Anhui Province has put forward supervisory opinions in accordance with the law, and the Compensation Committee of the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province has corrected the original illegal and improper compensation decision in accordance with the law, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the compensation claimant Cheng Xihua, and achieving good legal and social effects.

Case 2

Meng Qing's Application for National Compensation for Innocent Arrest by the People's Procuratorate of Qingxiu District

（1） Summary of the case

On April 5, 2013, Meng Qingzheng was criminally detained by the Nanhu Branch of Nanning Public Security Bureau on suspicion of theft. On the same day, he was approved for arrest by the Qingxiu District People's Procuratorate of Nanning City. On June 27 of the same year, the Nanhu Branch of Nanning Public Security Bureau was transferred to the People's Procuratorate of Qingxiu District for examination and prosecution. On January 9, 2014, the People's Procuratorate of Qingxiu District decided not to prosecute the Mengqing dispute on the grounds of unclear facts and insufficient evidence, in accordance with Article 171 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Law.

（2） Processing results

On February 8, 2014, Meng Qingzheng filed a national compensation application with the Qingxiu District People's Procuratorate on the grounds of being wrongly detained for innocent arrest. The People's Procuratorate of Qingxiu District believes that Meng Qingzheng made false statements during the examination and arrest approval stage, admitting that his statements made by the public security organs were true, leading to the decision to approve the arrest, which falls under the circumstances stipulated in Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the National Compensation Law, and has decided not to compensate. Meng Qing submitted a reconsideration request to the Nanning People's Procuratorate. On June 13, 2014, the People's Procuratorate of Nanning City made a reconsideration decision, believing that there were flaws in the evidence extracted by the public security organs. During this period, the guilty statements made by Meng Qing should be excluded and should not be deemed as intentional false statements. The compensation requested by Meng Qing falls within the scope of compensation stipulated in Article 17 (2) of the National Compensation Law; The decision to revoke the criminal compensation decision of the Qingxiu District People's Procuratorate was made, and the Qingxiu District People's Procuratorate paid 55992.51 yuan as compensation for the personal freedom of Meng Qing.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a national compensation case regarding the application of exemption clauses. In this case, after the claimant for compensation, Meng Qingzheng, filed a compensation application, the People's Procuratorate of Qingxiu District, Nanning City, held that Meng Qingzheng made false guilty statements during the examination and approval of the arrest, leading to the decision to approve the arrest, which falls under the circumstances stipulated in Article 19 (1) of the National Compensation Law. The above determination overlooks the important differences between guilty confession and intentional false confession in terms of cognitive and willpower factors. That is to say, the People's Procuratorate of Qingxiu District cannot classify any guilty confession as intentionally making false statements. Only when it is found that the perpetrator subjectively did intentionally make a statement that is contrary to the objective truth can it be legally recognized as intentionally making false statements. In practice, if the compensation obligation agency advocates exemption from compensation liability in accordance with Article 19 (1) of the National Compensation Law, it shall bear the burden of proof for the establishment of the exemption.

Case 3

Zhu Shengji's Application for National Compensation for the Innocent Arrest of Xuwen County People's Procuratorate

（1） Summary of the case

On July 17, 2012, Zhu Shengji was criminally detained by the Xuwen County Public Security Bureau on suspicion of intentional injury. On the same day, he was approved for arrest by the Xuwen County People's Procuratorate. On August 3 of the same year, the Xuwen County Public Security Bureau transferred the case to the Xuwen County People's Procuratorate for examination and prosecution. On August 20 of the same year, the Xuwen County People's Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Xuwen County People's Court. On January 10, 2013, the People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County withdrew the lawsuit. On the same day, the People's Court of Xuwen County ruled to allow the People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County to withdraw the lawsuit. On the same day, the Public Security Bureau of Xuwen County applied to the People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County to withdraw the case. On the same day, the People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County agreed to the withdrawal of the case by the Public Security Bureau of Xuwen County. On February 8th of the same year, the Xuwen County Public Security Bureau changed the mandatory measure for Zhu Shengji to obtain bail pending trial.

（2） Processing results

On July 17, 2014, Zhu Shengji submitted a national compensation application to the People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County, believing that the court had illegally exercised its powers and caused damage to its legitimate rights and interests. On the 21st of the same month, the People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County decided not to file the case on the grounds that the public security organs have not yet revoked the case of Zhu Shengji's suspected intentional injury, the criminal proceedings have not been concluded, and the national compensation filing conditions are not met. On October 13 of the same year, Zhu Shengji applied for reconsideration to the People's Procuratorate of Zhanjiang City. On December 12, 2014, the People's Procuratorate of Zhanjiang City made a reconsideration decision, stating that in accordance with Article 459 of the Criminal Procedure Rules of the People's Procuratorate (Trial), the People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County withdrew its prosecution of Zhu Shengji's suspected intentional injury case to the People's Court of Xuwen County on the grounds of "changes in facts and evidence", and should make a non prosecution decision against Zhu Shengji within 30 days after withdrawing the prosecution. If the People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County fails to make a non prosecution decision against Zhu Shengji within the time limit, according to legal provisions, it can be considered that the criminal proceedings in this case have been concluded. The People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County believes that the criminal proceedings in this case have not yet been concluded, and the decision of Zhu Shengji's compensation application that does not meet the national compensation conditions is inappropriate; And it has been decided that the People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County shall pay a personal freedom compensation of 41542.83 yuan to Zhu Shengji; The People's Procuratorate of Xuwen County, within the scope of the impact of the infringement, has eliminated the impact, restored the reputation, and apologized to Zhu Shengji.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a national compensation case regarding the termination of criminal responsibility after the withdrawal of prosecution. In this case, the claimant for compensation, Zhu Shengji, was changed from a compulsory measure to a bail pending trial. More than a year after the expiration of the period, the original case has not yet reached a conclusive conclusion in accordance with the law, resulting in the inability to initiate the national compensation procedure. The reconsideration authority, the People's Procuratorate of Zhanjiang City, has legally determined that the original criminal proceedings have been deemed terminated and made a timely reconsideration decision, ensuring the right of compensation claimants to obtain national compensation in accordance with the law. It has also played a positive guiding and promoting role in regulating law enforcement behavior. The handling of the case conforms to the spirit of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Compensation Cases" issued this time.

Case 4

Hu Dianjie applied for a retrial of the innocent state compensation case by the Intermediate People's Court of Puyang City

（1） Summary of the case

Hu Dianjie was criminally detained on March 23, 2002 on suspicion of intentional homicide and arrested on April 17 of the same year. After the prosecution by the procuratorial organs, the Intermediate People's Court of Puyang City (hereinafter referred to as the Puyang Intermediate Court) sentenced Hu Dianjie to death four times for intentional homicide, with a two-year suspension of execution. However, the original judgment was revoked by the second instance court and remanded for retrial. During the fourth retrial, the prosecutor's office decided to withdraw the prosecution on December 29, 2010, and the Puyang Intermediate Court ruled to grant permission. After obtaining approval to withdraw the case, the procuratorial organs returned the case to the public security organs for supplementary investigation. The public security organs immediately released Hu Dianjie and changed the mandatory measure to residential surveillance. After the period of residential surveillance expired on July 19, 2011, Hu Dianjie was no longer subjected to compulsory measures and was actually detained for 3225 days.

（2） Processing results

Hu Dianjie applied for national compensation to the Puyang Intermediate Court on December 13, 2011, but the court did not accept it. Hu Dianjie applied to the Compensation Commission of the Higher People's Court of Henan Province for a national compensation decision. The compensation commission of the court believed that if the prosecution withdrew the prosecution during the retrial process of the criminal case and did not proceed with the prosecution within the statutory time limit, the compensation claimant had the right to apply for national compensation in accordance with the law. Based on this decision, the Puyang Intermediate Court's notice of rejection of the case was revoked and the court was instructed to accept it. After accepting it, Puyang Intermediate People's Court believes that, The application for criminal compensation must be based on the termination of the criminal proceedings... Hu Dianjie was released during the criminal proceedings due to the inability to complete the case within the detention period, and because his case cannot be completed within the statutory period, he needs to continue investigating and being placed under residential surveillance. Later, due to the expiration of the residential surveillance period, he was released from residential surveillance. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that the criminal case procedure involving Hu Dianjie has been terminated, nor can it be confirmed that Hu Dianjie and the criminal sentence involved have been terminated The matter is unrelated to the case. Hu Dianjie does not meet the conditions for applying for national compensation Therefore, on March 21, 2013, the court made decision (2012) Puzhong Fa Bao Zi No. 3, rejecting Hu Dianjie's national compensation application. Hu Dianjie once again applied to the Compensation Commission of the Henan Higher People's Court for a national compensation decision. After the hearing, the Compensation Commission of the court made a decision on November 16, 2015: 1. Revoke the Puyang Intermediate People's Court's (2012) Puzhong Fa Bao Zi No. 3 decision; 2、 Puyang Intermediate People's Court compensated Hu Dianjie with 708597 yuan for being detained for 3225 days in accordance with the national average daily wage standard of 219.72 yuan in 2014; 3、 Puyang Intermediate People's Court compensated Hu Dianjie with a compensation of 150000 yuan for mental damage and comfort; 4、 Puyang Intermediate People's Court made a public announcement in the township where Hu Dianjie's registered residence is located to eliminate his influence, restore his reputation and apologize.

（3） Typical significance

This case is about a national compensation case that is determined to constitute a termination of criminal responsibility after being remanded for retrial. In this case, Hu Dianjie was criminally detained and arrested on suspicion of intentional homicide. He was sentenced to death four times for intentional homicide with a two-year suspension of execution, but his original sentence was revoked by the second instance court and remanded for retrial. During the fourth retrial, after obtaining permission to withdraw the prosecution, the prosecution returned the case to the public security organs for supplementary investigation. The public security organs subsequently released Hu Dianjie and changed the compulsory measure to residential surveillance. After the period of residential surveillance expired, no further compulsory measures were taken. Starting from the purpose of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, during the retrial period, the Puyang Intermediate People's Court allowed the procuratorial organs to withdraw the prosecution against Hu Dianjie. Since then, the procuratorial organs have not prosecuted again for several years, and it should be deemed that the criminal proceedings against Hu Dianjie have ended. Hu Dianjie has the right to apply for national compensation. The Puyang Intermediate People's Court rejected Hu Dianjie's compensation application on the grounds that "it cannot be confirmed that the criminal case procedure involved by Hu Dianjie has been terminated, nor can it be confirmed that Hu Dianjie is unrelated to the criminal case" in handling the self compensation case, causing Hu Dianjie to fall into a procedural dilemma of endless termination of the criminal case and hopeless acceptance of the application for compensation. The Higher People's Court of Henan Province has corrected this and provided effective procedural relief and rights protection for citizens who are unable to receive national compensation due to procedural obstruction. This is consistent with the provisions of the "Judicial Interpretation" regarding the determination of "termination of criminal responsibility", reflecting the legislative spirit of the national compensation law to remedy rights, protect human rights, and regulate public rights.

Case 5

Yang Suqin and Wang Youshen applied for criminal illegal seizure of state compensation by the People's Procuratorate of Liaozhong County

（1） Summary of the case

In July and August 1992, Wang Shoucheng (deceased, the husband of Yang Suqin and the father of Wang Youshen, the joint claimant for compensation) and Xiaozhaimen Supply and Marketing Cooperative in Liaozhong County verbally reached an agreement to contract the operation of the company's waste and old material acquisition station. The two parties agreed on the business scope, methods, tax payment, and profit distribution, and clarified that the Xiaozhaimen Supply and Marketing Cooperative in Liaozhong County, Liaoning Province would provide the business license and bank account, Afterwards, Wang Shoucheng paid 3% of the sales revenue as agreed. On April 3, 1993, the People's Procuratorate of Liaozhong County, Liaoning Province (hereinafter referred to as the Liaozhong County Procuratorate) criminally detained Wang Shoucheng on suspicion of tax evasion. On the same day, it decided to release him on bail pending trial. Wang Shoucheng was restricted from personal freedom for 15 days. After being entrusted by the Liaozhong County Procuratorate to Shenyang Taxation Consulting Office for appraisal, it is determined that Wang Shoucheng is operating without a certificate and his behavior constitutes tax evasion. On March 3, 1994, the People's Procuratorate of Liaozhong County filed a public prosecution with the People's Court of Liaozhong County. On June 6 of the same year, the People's Court of Liaozhong County returned the case to the People's Procuratorate of Liaozhong County for supplementary investigation, citing unclear facts and insufficient evidence. After supplementary investigation, the Liaozhong County Procuratorate believes that Wang Shoucheng is not an independent taxpayer and a non taxpayer, and tax declaration should be the obligation of the supply and marketing cooperative as a corporate entity. Therefore, Wang Shoucheng cannot be considered as operating without a certificate and does not constitute a crime of tax evasion. Therefore, it is decided to revoke this case. Wang Shoucheng applied to the People's Procuratorate of Liaozhong County to refund the collected tax, but the court refused to refund it on the grounds that it had already been turned over to the tax authority. On July 13, 2007, Wang Shoucheng passed away due to illness. Subsequently, Wang Shoucheng's wife Yang Suqin, as Wang Shoucheng's heir, applied for national compensation to the Liaozhong County Procuratorate. In addition, during the investigation of Wang Shoucheng's suspected tax evasion case, the People's Procuratorate of Liaozhong County has deducted 125681 yuan from the account of Xiaozhaimen Supply and Marketing Cooperative in Liaozhong County three times, which belongs to Wang Shoucheng. The Liaozhong County Procuratorate has detained and deducted Wang Shoucheng 168681 yuan seven times, with a total of 161181 yuan not returned, excluding the refund of 7500 yuan.

（2） Processing results

The Liaozhong County Procuratorate has made a criminal compensation decision of Liaojian Criminal Compensation Zi [2012] No. 1, deciding to return the detained tax of 47500 yuan; Compensation of 2439.75 yuan for Wang Shoucheng's lost work expenses during his detention period. Yang Suqin was not satisfied and applied for reconsideration to the Shenyang People's Procuratorate. However, the Shenyang People's Procuratorate did not make a decision within the time limit. Therefore, Yang Suqin applied to the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court Compensation Committee for a compensation decision. The court made (2013) Shen Zhong Wei Bao Zi No. 4 decision to maintain the decision of the Liaozhong County Procuratorate to compensate Wang Shoucheng for his lost work expenses of 2439.75 yuan during his detention and to refund the detained tax of 47500 yuan; Increase the interest and mental damage compensation for Yang Suqin by returning 47500 yuan and 1000 yuan. Yang Suqin filed an appeal with the Liaoning Higher People's Court, and the Liaoning Higher People's Court's Compensation Committee (2013) Liao Fa Wei Jia Jian Zi No. 30 Notice of Rejection rejected Yang Suqin's appeal. Subsequently, the Compensation Commission of the Supreme People's Court made Decision No. 25 (2014) on Compensation Supervision, deciding to directly hear the case, and made National Compensation Decision No. 25 (2014) on Compensation Supervision, upholding the decision of the Liaozhong County Procuratorate to compensate Wang Shoucheng with a personal freedom compensation of 2439.75 yuan and a spiritual damage compensation of 1000 yuan; It has been decided that the Liaozhong County Procuratorate shall compensate Yang Suqin and Wang Youshen with 161181 yuan and interest.

（3） Typical significance

This case is about criminal illegal seizure compensation. The Liaozhong County Procuratorate seized Wang Shoucheng's money during the investigation of his tax evasion case, and later revoked the case because it did not constitute a tax evasion crime. However, the money deducted at that time has not been returned. This situation, that is, after the end of the criminal case, the investigating authority does not return the seized property, falls within the scope of criminal compensation for infringement of property rights as stipulated in Article 18 of the National Compensation Law. The prosecution in this case refused to return the confiscated property on the grounds that it had been turned over to the tax authorities, and the reason cannot be established. The handling of this case is consistent with the spirit of Article 3 of the Judicial Interpretation, reflecting the essence of the national compensation law in protecting legitimate property rights and the state governance function of regulating the exercise of public power.

Case 6

Case of Chen Weiguo and Liu Qiande Applying for National Compensation for Illegal Criminal Detention by Tonglu County Public Security Bureau

（1） Summary of the case

On the evening of October 1, 2010, Yang Yongping, the former chairman of Jinda Pen Industry Co., Ltd. in Tonglu County, Zhejiang Province, had a dispute with Hu Qunli and others in Fenshui Town, Tonglu County at the company gate due to driving issues. Due to a disagreement, the two sides developed from verbal arguments to physical conflicts. Yang Yongping called in employees Ye Linhua, Chen Weiguo, Liu Qiande, and others to cause trouble and beat up Hu Qunli and others. After identification, Hu Qunli and others were beaten, resulting in mild to minor injuries. On October 2, 2010, Chen Weiguo and Liu Qiande were summoned to the Fenshui Police Station of Tonglu County Public Security Bureau on suspicion of assaulting others. On October 3rd, the Tonglu County Public Security Bureau filed a criminal case against Yang Yongping and others for their provocative and troublemaking behavior, and on the same day decided to detain Chen Weiguo and Liu Qiande criminally. On October 6, 2010, after further investigation, the Public Security Bureau of Tonglu County lifted the criminal coercive measures against Chen Weiguo and Liu Qiande on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and revoked their criminal registration.

（2） Processing results

After trial, the Compensation Commission of the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that, according to Article 293 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the objective elements of the crime of provocation and trouble are: "(1) beating others at will, if the circumstances are serious;..." According to this provision, the act of beating others in a serious manner constitutes the crime of provocation and trouble. According to Article 61 (revised to Article 80) (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, public security organs may first detain an active criminal or a major suspect if a victim or a person present and witnessed him/her designates him/her as a criminal, that is, the first detention must be based on the premise that the detained person is an active criminal or a major suspect. In this case, Chen Weiguo and Liu Qiande did not fall under the aforementioned circumstances. Therefore, the Tonglu County Public Security Bureau's criminal detention of Chen Weiguo and Liu Qiande lacked sufficient evidence. The criminal detention decision violated the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and should be liable for compensation. Decision: 1. Revoke the criminal compensation decision of the Tonglu County Public Security Bureau and the criminal compensation reconsideration decision of the Hangzhou Public Security Bureau respectively, which are responsible for compensation obligations. 2、 The compensation obligation agency, Tonglu County Public Security Bureau, shall compensate for the infringement of Chen Weiguo and Liu Qiande's right to personal freedom for 4 days.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a national compensation case regarding the criteria for reviewing and judging illegal criminal detention. When reviewing and judging whether a criminal detention decision is illegal, the compensation committee of the people's court should not only review the legality of the procedure for the handling authority to take compulsory measures, but also conduct a substantive review of the legality of the conditions for taking such compulsory measures. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, public security organs may detain current offenders or major suspects if a victim or someone who has witnessed the crime identifies them as having committed the crime. In this case, the Compensation Committee of the People's Court, after substantive examination, found that Chen Weiguo and Liu Qiande were not current offenders or major suspects. The Tonglu County Public Security Bureau's criminal detention of Chen Weiguo and Liu Qiande lacked sufficient evidence, and the criminal detention decision violated the conditions stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law. According to this, the victim has the right to receive state compensation.

Case 7

Huang Xing's Application to Fujian Provincial Higher People's Court for Retrial of the Case of Innocent State Compensation

（1） Summary of the case

On March 2, 1998, the People's Procuratorate of Fuzhou City, Fujian Province accused Huang Xing and others of kidnapping and illegal detention, and filed a public prosecution with the Intermediate People's Court of Fuzhou City, Fujian Province (hereinafter referred to as the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court). The Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court issued guilty judgments twice on November 6, 1998 and April 11, 2000. After two rulings by the Fujian Provincial High People's Court for retrial, the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court issued a criminal and civil judgment on August 22, 2002, which found Huang Xing guilty of kidnapping and sentenced him to death with a two-year suspension of execution. He also committed the crime of illegal detention and was sentenced to three years in prison. The combined decision was to execute the death sentence with a two-year suspension of execution. On November 25, 2006, the Higher People's Court of Fujian Province issued a criminal incidental civil ruling, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment. Due to the appeal of the defendant and their relatives, the Higher People's Court of Fujian Province filed a retrial after examination. On May 29, 2015, the Higher People's Court of Fujian Province issued the (2015) Min Xing Zai Zhong Zi No. 3 Criminal Adjunctive Civil Judgment, which found that Huang Xing did not constitute the crime of kidnapping. The judgment was as follows: 1. The original judgment on the crime of illegal detention was upheld, that is, the defendant Huang Xing in the original trial committed the crime of illegal detention and was sentenced to three years in prison; 2、 Revoke the original judgment on the crime of kidnapping. Huang Xing was released on the same day. Afterwards, Huang Xing filed a national compensation application on the grounds of innocence in the retrial.

From being detained on June 2, 1996 to being released on May 29, 2015, Huang Xing was completely restricted in personal freedom for 6936 days. After deducting the three-year sentence he was sentenced to for illegal detention, his personal freedom was completely restricted for 5841 days.

（2） Processing results

In the process of handling national compensation cases, the Fujian Provincial High People's Court and the compensation claimant Huang Xing have held multiple negotiations on their national compensation application. Through these negotiations, Huang Xing expressed understanding and agreement with the legality and comfort of national compensation, and apologized to the Fujian Provincial High People's Court for the compensation made during the coordination process, and also accepted it. Therefore, both parties have reached a compensation agreement in accordance with the law. The Higher People's Court of Fujian Province has decided to pay Huang Xing a personal freedom compensation of 1283384.52 yuan and a mental injury compensation of 580000 yuan, totaling 1863384.52 yuan, and to eliminate the impact of Huang Xing's infringement behavior and restore his reputation.

（3） Typical significance

This case is about a national compensation case where a single crime in the combined punishment of multiple crimes was acquitted. In this case, the Fujian Provincial Higher People's Court upheld the original judgment on the crime of illegal detention and revoked the original judgment on the crime of kidnapping in the criminal incidental civil judgment. According to Article 17 (3) of the State Compensation Law of the People's Republic of China, if a retrial is conducted in accordance with the trial supervision procedure and the original sentence has been executed, the victim has the right to compensation. This provision should be understood as specific to a specific crime. If Huang Xing's kidnapping crime is revoked, it should be deemed as a retrial and acquittal. Due to the imprisonment period exceeding the sentence determined by the retrial judgment, Huang Xing has the right to obtain national compensation for the portion of the extended imprisonment.

Case 8

Teng Degang applied for national compensation for illegal inaction in Siping Prison, Jilin Province

（1） Summary of the case

The compensation claimant Teng Degang was sentenced to 16 years in prison in 1996 for committing theft and robbery, and later served his sentence in Siping Prison. On December 30, 1999, Teng Degang, along with Wu Zhanhai, Liu Xianxin, and Meng Fanyou (all serving sentences), were temporarily arranged to form a mutually supervised outsourcing group to carry out coal pushing work at the cement production and processing site in the supervision area. During this time, Teng Degang and the three others had an argument with Wu Zhanhai. The last four people left their positions without permission and rested in the main control room. At around 5 o'clock on the same day, Wu Zhanhai took advantage of Teng Degang and the three others being asleep and picked up the iron chisel used for indoor coal smashing. He hit Teng Degang and the three others on the head several times in a row. After discovering that the three did not respond, he believed that the three were dead and climbed the iron ladder outside the second floor window to the top of the building, intending to jump off the building and commit suicide. At around 5:00 pm on the same day, three people were found injured. After the staff of Siping Prison and other prison management personnel arrived at the scene, they organized medical treatment for the injured and arrested Wu Zhanhai at 22:45 pm on the same day. Teng Degang was later identified by the Jilin Sanyuan Judicial Appraisal Institute as having a left limb hemiplegia caused by a cerebral softening lesion, with a muscle strength of four levels and a disability of seven levels; A craniocerebral defect of 160 square centimeters is classified as a ninth degree disability. The cost of repairing the skull is between 5620 yuan and 21000 yuan, which is reasonable. Later, Wu Zhanhai was sentenced to death by the Intermediate People's Court of Siping City for intentional homicide.

（2） Processing results

The Compensation Commission of the Jilin Provincial Higher People's Court held that there were safety issues at the labor site of Siping Prison in this case, and the prison police supervision measures were not in place. Based on relevant regulations and the circumstances of this case, it can be determined that there was a certain degree of inaction in the supervision of Siping Prison. According to the National Compensation Law and relevant regulations, Siping Prison should bear a certain proportion of compensation responsibility. Due to the fact that the injury suffered by Teng Degang in this case was directly caused by Wu Zhanhai, and Teng Degang, along with other inmates, left his coal pushing position without authorization before his injury. He also had certain violations. Therefore, based on the specific situation of this case, the Compensation Committee of the Jilin Provincial High People's Court has determined that Siping Prison will bear 30% of the responsibility for regulatory inaction. It has been decided that Siping Prison will pay a total of 136519.11 yuan in national compensation to Teng Degang, the claimant for compensation.

（3） Typical significance

This case is about the prison management authorities failing to fulfill their duties and assuming national compensation responsibility. The prison management authorities have a statutory supervisory responsibility for the prisoners under their supervision. If a person neglects to exercise this responsibility and causes damage to the prisoners, even if the damage is directly caused by the injurious behavior of other prisoners, the prison management authorities should also bear a certain proportion of national compensation responsibility based on the role of their inaction in causing the damage, combined with their degree of fault.