目录

1．俸红飞故意杀人案

2．兴业银行股份有限公司济南分行诉山东钢铁股份有限公司、山东钢铁股份有限公司济南分公司、福建省旺隆贸易有限公司保兑仓业务合作合同纠纷案

3．央视国际网络有限公司与上海全土豆文化传播有限公司侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷案

4．郭德胜诉河南省卫辉市国土资源局行政处罚案

5. 戴世华诉济南市公安消防支队消防行政验收案

一、俸红飞故意杀人案

（一）基本案情

2011年12月9日,被告人俸红飞与同村村民俸某强（被害人，殁年13岁）、俸某佳（被害人，殁年13岁）相约到水坝处捉老鼠，后三人又在一起制作烤肉。其间，俸红飞因琐事与俸某强发生争吵，遂持长柄尖刀、铁锤先后捅刺、击打俸某强和俸某佳，致俸某强心脏被刺破，失血性休克死亡；致俸某佳失血性休克合并颅脑损伤死亡。俸红飞就地挖坑将俸某强、俸某佳的尸体掩埋。12月11日,俸红飞为转移视线,书写两封勒索信,分别放置于俸某强、俸某佳家门口。

（二）裁判结果

最高人民法院认为，被告人俸红飞故意非法剥夺他人生命，其行为已构成故意杀人罪。俸红飞因琐事持械杀死两名未成年人，犯罪手段残忍，情节特别恶劣，后果特别严重，属罪行极其严重，应依法惩处。第一审判决、第二审裁定认定的事实清楚，证据确实、充分，定罪准确，量刑适当。审判程序合法。依照刑事诉讼法规定，核准云南省高级人民法院维持第一审以故意杀人罪判处被告人俸红飞死刑，剥夺政治权利终身的刑事裁定。

（三）典型意义

近年来，侵犯未成年人权益的犯罪时有发生，有的罪行极其严重，并造成恶劣的社会影响。对于此类犯罪，全国法院始终坚持依法严厉打击，有力惩处犯罪分子，并通过案件审判提高全社会的法制意识和防范保护意识，进一步营造有利于未成年人健康成长的良好社会环境。在本案中，被告人俸红飞仅因琐事竟持尖刀、铁锤分别将两名年仅13岁的未成年人杀死，其犯罪手段残忍，情节特别恶劣，后果特别严重，属罪行极其严重。最高人民法院根据俸红飞的罪行，依法核准其死刑，是完全正确的。

二、兴业银行股份有限公司济南分行诉山东钢铁股份有限公司、山东钢铁股份有限公司济南分公司、福建省旺隆贸易有限公司保兑仓业务合作合同纠纷案

（一）基本案情

2012年2月24日，兴业银行济南分行、旺隆公司与济钢公司签订《保兑仓业务三方合作协议》，约定：为保障兴业银行济南分行与旺隆公司在2012年2月24日至2013年2月23日期间发生的各类授信业务项下协议的履行，旺隆公司、济钢公司双方同意以银行承兑汇票作为双方贸易合同的付款方式，并由兴业银行济南分行作为汇票的承兑银行，济钢公司作为汇票的收款人。兴业银行济南分行同意贷款给旺隆公司，用以支付旺隆公司在上述贸易合同项下的货款。提货采用旺隆公司从济钢公司自行提货的模式。银行承兑汇票开出后，旺隆公司即可向济钢公司提取与初始保证金100%等值的货物。此后旺隆公司每次向济钢公司提货时，济钢公司均应凭兴业银行济南分行签发的《提货通知书》办理。济钢公司收到《提货通知书》的当日立即向兴业银行济南分行签发《发货通知书》，并按《提货通知书》规定向旺隆公司办理发货事宜。济钢公司违反上述规定给旺隆公司办理提货手续的，应当向兴业银行济南分行承担连带还款责任。

2012年2月27日，济钢公司更名为山钢公司，2012年2月28日，设立山钢济南公司。山钢公司同意由山钢济南公司继续履行《保兑仓业务三方合作协议》中济钢公司的相关责任和义务，另两方对此也予以认可。

2012年8月14日，兴业银行济南分行（承兑人）与旺隆公司（承兑申请人）签订《商业汇票银行承兑合同》。约定兴业银行济南分行为旺隆公司办理银行承兑汇票8150万元，期限为2012年8月14日至2013年2月14日。2012年8月15日，兴业银行济南分行将出票人为旺隆公司、收款人为山钢济南公司的17份共计8150万元的银行承兑汇票交付山钢济南公司，按照《保兑仓业务三方合作协议》约定履行了义务。此后，山钢济南公司在未收到兴业银行济南分行的提货通知的情况下，未按《保兑仓业务三方合作协议》约定将剩余5705万元承兑汇票退回兴业银行济南分行，自行将等值货物交付旺隆公司。

兴业银行济南分行与旺隆公司签订《商业汇票银行承兑合同》于2013年2月14日到期，旺隆公司未按合同约定履行还款义务。截至2013年3月25日，旺隆公司共欠兴业银行济南分行银行承兑汇票垫付款本金56707177.04元及利息1081765.24元。

兴业银行济南分行诉至法院请求判令旺隆公司偿还银行承兑汇票项下款项5705万元，并承担利息1081765.24元；山钢公司、山钢济南公司对上述债务承担连带清偿责任。

（二）裁判结果

山东省高级人民法院二审认为：兴业银行济南分行与济钢公司、旺隆公司签订的《保兑仓业务三方合作协议》，系为了保障旺隆公司在2012年2月24日至2013年2月23日期间与兴业银行济南分行发生的各类授信业务的履行而签订。根据该协议约定，旺隆公司与济钢公司之间设立贸易合同关系，旺隆公司以向兴业银行济南分行申请开立银行承兑汇票的融资方式，将收款人为济钢公司的银行承兑汇票，由兴业银行济南分行直接支付到济钢公司，旺隆公司在银行承兑汇票到期前将票款足额支付到兴业银行济南分行，兴业银行济南分行根据旺隆公司支付票款的数额和进度向济钢公司发出提货通知书，济钢公司依据兴业银行济南分行发出的提货通知书向旺隆公司发货；如济钢公司未接到兴业银行济南分行的提货通知书就向旺隆公司发货，应对旺隆公司的债务承担连带还款责任。后因济钢公司更名为山钢公司，原济钢公司的资产、负债、权益、业务及其他权利与义务由山钢济南公司承继。山钢济南公司未按照约定履行《保兑仓业务三方合作协议》，构成违约，兴业银行济南分行要求山钢济南公司承担连带还款责任符合合同约定和法律规定，故山钢公司应与山钢济南公司共同对旺隆公司的债务承担连带还款责任。兴业银行济南分行依合同约定为旺隆公司垫付了银行承兑汇票款，履行了合同义务。旺隆公司未按合同约定在银行承兑汇票到期前向兴业银行济南分行足额交存票款，应承担还款责任，并按合同约定支付利息。遂判决旺隆公司偿还兴业银行济南分行银行承兑汇票垫付款本金56707177.04元及利息1081765.24元；山钢公司、山钢济南公司就旺隆公司的偿还义务承担连带清偿责任。

（三）典型意义

该案是山东省内首例保兑仓纠纷案件，该案的判决起到很好的示范效应。“保兑仓”是指以银行信用为载体，以银行承兑汇票为结算工具，由银行控制货权，卖方受托保管货物并对承兑汇票保证金以外金额部分由卖方以货物回购作为担保措施，由银行向卖方和买方提供的以银行承兑汇票的一种金融服务。保兑仓作为一种新类型融资方式，对卖方而言，保障了收款；对买方而言，降低了融资成本；对银行而言，保障了资金安全。该案的判决，充分体现了人民法院在支持新类型融资方式、规范融资市场发展方面的职能作用。

三、央视国际网络有限公司与上海全土豆文化传播有限公司侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷案

（一）基本案情

《舌尖上的中国》是中央电视台摄制的一部大型美食类纪录片，播出后引起强烈的社会影响，享有较高知名度。中央电视台此后将该节目的著作权授予原告央视国际网络有限公司。 2012年5月23日，上海市静安公证处应原告申请，对被告上海全土豆文化传播有限公司在其经营的网站“土豆网”（网址www.tudou.com）上提供涉案节目的在线点播服务的行为进行了公证。原告认为，土豆网未经许可，在涉案节目热播期内提供在线点播服务，严重侵犯其合法权益，给原告造成了重大经济损失，故诉至法院，请求判令被告赔偿经济损失80万元及为调查取证所支付的合理费用5万元。

（二）裁判结果

上海市闵行区人民法院和上海市第一中级人民法院经审理认为：涉案作品是我国著作权法规定的类似电影摄制方法创作的作品，应受《著作权法》保护。全土豆公司未经授权于作品热播期内在其经营的网站上提供涉案作品的在线点播服务，是典型的侵犯作品信息网络传播权的行为，应该承担相应的侵权责任。全土豆公司辩称其提供存储空间服务，涉案作品系网友上传，但就该主张未提供证据证明；且有关实际上传者的信息属于其自行掌控和管理范围之内，理应由其举证，其自行删除原始数据导致该节事实无法查明，应对此承担不利后果。据此判决全土豆公司赔偿央视网络公司经济损失24万元，合理费用8,000元。

（三）典型意义

该案是典型的互联网中侵犯作品信息网络传播权纠纷的案例。涉案作品体现了较高程度的独创性，享有较高的社会知名度。作为专业视频分享网站的土豆网是影响力较大的专业网络服务提供者，其在涉案作品热播期就擅自传播涉案作品，且侵权行为持续的时间较长，给权利人造成了较大的经济损失。在确定法定赔偿金额的时候，法院充分考虑了涉案作品的类型、社会知名度、侵权行为的性质、以及侵权网站的经营规模、经营模式、影响力等因素，判决了共计248000元的赔偿金额，不仅有利于弥补权利人的经济损失，并促使各互联网视频提供者的自律和行业管理，也顺应了依法加强互联网知识产权保护的趋势，对日益多发的互联网视频侵权的案件有警示作用。

四、郭德胜诉河南省卫辉市国土资源局行政处罚案

（一）基本案情

2009年，郭德胜在未办理土地使用手续的情况下建造养殖场一处，实际占用土地面积220.50平方米。2011年12月5日，河南省卫辉市国土资源管理局（以下简称卫辉市国土局）对原告郭德胜作出了卫国土监字（2011）第041号行政处罚决定书，要求原告拆除在非法占用的220.50平方米土地上新建的建筑物220.50平方米，恢复土地原状，并处罚款4410元。原告认为被告作出处罚决定认定事实错误，诉至河南省卫辉市人民法院，要求撤销该处罚决定。

（二）裁判结果

河南省卫辉市人民法院认为，原告郭德胜未经批准非法占用土地建养殖场的行为，违反了我国土地管理法的有关规定，卫辉市国土局应当根据郭德胜非法占用土地的行为，是否符合当地土地利用总体规划的事实，对郭德胜作出限期拆除非法占用土地上的建筑物或没收非法占用土地上的建筑物的行政处罚。但被告提供的标示郭德胜违法占用土地的具体位置的图纸未附说明材料，被告在庭审中亦未对该图纸中原告占用土地位置的确定方法作出说明、解释，致法院无法判断郭德胜占用的土地系农用地还是建设用地，即原告建造的养殖场是否符合当地土地利用总体规划，直接导致无法确定被告对原告的违法行为应如何处罚，即是拆除还是没收在非法占用土地上的建筑物。同时，根据行政处罚法等规定，被告对原告作出限期拆除建筑物即较重的行政处罚决定之前，应当经过本单位领导集体讨论决定，但是被告未提供其对原告作出的处罚决定经过了本单位领导集体讨论决定的证据。因此，被告对原告作出的处罚决定主要证据不足，不符合法定程序，依法应予撤销。依据行政诉讼法规定，判决撤销卫辉市国土局2011年12月5日对原告郭德胜作出的卫国土监字（2011）第041号土地违法案件行政处罚决定书，并由被告重新作出处理。

一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉，一审判决已发生法律效力。

（三）典型意义

《行政处罚法》第三十八条第二款规定：“对情节复杂或者重大违法行为给予较重的行政处罚，行政机关的负责人应当集体讨论决定。” 国家土地管理局《土地违法案件查处办法》第二十七条“土地违法案件应当由土地管理部门领导集体审议，但实行行政首长负责制。审议应当制作笔录，由参加审议的成员签名……”以上规定确立了行政处罚程序中的行政机关负责人集体讨论制度，即在对情节复杂或重大违法行为进行较重处罚前，行政机关的负责人通过党组会、联席会议、首长办公会等形式进行集体研究，再作出行政处罚决定。

较重的行政处罚，可能对被处罚人的权利造成巨大影响。如本案中国土资源部门作出的限期拆除建筑物的处罚，该处罚一经执行，将造成房屋灭失等无法逆转的后果，该处罚决定即使经过行政诉讼程序撤销，也不再具有恢复原状的可能性。经过负责人的集体讨论，不仅能够防止个别领导干部滥用权力，还能最大限度地保证行政决策的民主性和科学性，避免决策的随意性。

五、戴世华诉济南市公安消防支队消防行政验收案

（一）基本案情

2011年10月24日，济南市旧城改造公司向济南市公安消防支队提出验收备案申请，要求对馆驿街以南棚户区改造工程1-8号楼的消防设施进行抽查验收。济南市公安局消防支队进行抽查后，于2011年11月21日作出济公消验备[2011]第0172号《建设工程消防验收备案结果通知》，认定馆驿街以南棚户区改造工程1-8号楼工程消防设施抽查合格，并于同日将备案结果在山东365消防服务网消防监督结果公开栏目中进行了公示。该工程6号3单元801室住户戴世华，认为其楼洞内消防栓箱设置不符合消防安全设置规范，济公消验备[2011]第0172号《建设工程消防验收备案结果通知》认定事实错误，向济南市高新区人民法院提起行政诉讼。

（二）裁判结果

济南市高新区人民法院一审认为，《建设工程消防验收备案结果通知》属于技术性验收通知，不是具体行政行为，不属于人民法院行政诉讼的受案范围，依照行政诉讼法等规定，裁定驳回原告戴世华的起诉。

济南市中级人民法院二审认为，建设工程消防验收备案是建设工程消防设施质量监督管理的最后环节，备案结果中含有消防竣工验收是否合格的评定，根据消防法的规定，建设工程经公安消防机关验收不合格的，应当停止使用，据此，消防验收备案结果具有拘束力，消防验收备案行为具有行政确认的性质，是消防行政机关的具体行政行为，属于人民法院行政诉讼的受案范围，依照《最高人民法院关于执行<中华人民共和国行政诉讼法>若干问题的解释》第六十八条之规定，裁定撤销原审裁定，指定济南市高新区人民法院继续审理。

（三）典型意义

当前，消防安全形势空前严峻。作为消防安全的前置关口，建设工程消防验收责任重大，但却一直游离于司法审查之外，导致社会关注度低，程序透明性差，权力行使随意性大，作用难以充分发挥。本案首次明确了消防验收行为的行政确认属性，从而将其纳入行政诉讼的受案范围，具有重要的规则意义，必将有利于督促消防机关严格履行验收职责，更加有利于人民群众生命、财产安全的保障。同时通过辩法析理，使消防机关认识到了司法审查的正当性，从而积极准备参加后续诉讼，法院最终维持了该备案结果通知。判决后，该案被《大众日报》、《济南日报》等多家重要媒体密集报道，被最高人民法院《中国行政审判案例》第七卷收录，并获2013年度全国法院行政审判优秀业务成果二等奖，取得了良好的法律效果和社会效果。

catalogue

1. Feng Hongfei's intentional homicide case

2. Industrial Bank Co., Ltd. Jinan Branch v. Shandong Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. Jinan Branch, Fujian Wanglong Trading Co., Ltd. Confirmed Warehouse Business Cooperation Contract Dispute Case

3. Dispute between CCTV International Network Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Quandou Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. on Infringement of Work Information Network Communication Rights

4. Guo Desheng v. Administrative Penalty Case of the Land and Resources Bureau of Weihui City, Henan Province

5. Dai Shihua v. Jinan Public Security Fire Brigade Fire Administrative Acceptance Case

1、 Feng Hongfei's Intentional Murder Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 9, 2011, the defendant Feng Hongfei and the villagers in the same village, Feng Mouqiang (victim, 13 years old) and Feng Moujia (victim, 13 years old), made an appointment to catch mice at the dam, and the three of them made barbecue together. During this period, Feng Hongfei had a dispute with Feng Mouqiang over trivial matters, and then held a long handled sharp knife and hammer to stab and hit Feng Mouqiang and Feng Moujia successively, causing Feng Mouqiang's heart to be punctured and he died from hemorrhagic shock; Feng Moujia died of hemorrhagic shock combined with head injury. Feng Hongfei dug a pit on site to bury the bodies of Feng Qiang and Feng Jia. On December 11th, Feng Hongfei wrote two extortion letters to divert his attention, each placed at the doorstep of Feng Mouqiang and Feng Moujia's home.

（2） Judgment results

The Supreme People's Court believes that the defendant Feng Hongfei intentionally and illegally deprived others of their lives, and his behavior constitutes intentional homicide. Feng Hongfei killed two minors with weapons due to trivial matters. The criminal methods were cruel, the circumstances were particularly severe, and the consequences were particularly serious. The crime was extremely serious and should be punished in accordance with the law. The facts determined in the first and second instance judgments are clear, the evidence is reliable and sufficient, the conviction is accurate, and the sentencing is appropriate. The trial procedure is legal. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, it is approved that the Yunnan Provincial Higher People's Court upheld the criminal ruling of the first instance that the defendant, Feng Hongfei, was sentenced to death for intentional homicide and deprived of political rights for life.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, crimes that infringe on the rights and interests of minors have occurred from time to time, some of which are extremely serious and have caused adverse social impacts. For such crimes, the national courts have always adhered to strict crackdowns in accordance with the law, effectively punished criminals, and improved the legal awareness and prevention and protection awareness of the whole society through case trials, further creating a good social environment conducive to the healthy growth of minors. In this case, the defendant Feng Hongfei killed two minors who were only 13 years old with a sharp knife and a hammer due to trivial matters. His criminal methods were cruel, the circumstances were particularly severe, and the consequences were particularly serious, which constitutes an extremely serious crime. It is completely correct for the Supreme People's Court to approve Feng Hongfei's death penalty in accordance with the law based on his crime.

2、 Industrial Bank Co., Ltd. Jinan Branch v. Shandong Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. Jinan Branch, Fujian Wanglong Trading Co., Ltd. Confirmed Warehouse Business Cooperation Contract Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On February 24, 2012, Industrial Bank Jinan Branch, Wanglong Company, and Jigang Company signed a tripartite cooperation agreement on confirmed warehouse business, which stipulated that in order to ensure the performance of various credit business agreements between Industrial Bank Jinan Branch and Wanglong Company between February 24, 2012 and February 23, 2013, Wanglong Company and Jigang Company agreed to use bank acceptance bills as the payment method for their trade contracts, And Industrial Bank Jinan Branch serves as the acceptance bank for the draft, while Jigang Company serves as the payee for the draft. Industrial Bank Jinan Branch has agreed to lend a loan to Wanglong Company to pay for the goods under the above-mentioned trade contract. The mode of picking up the goods is adopted by Wanglong Company from Jigang Company. After the bank acceptance bill is issued, Wanglong Company can withdraw goods equivalent to 100% of the initial deposit from Jigang Company. Afterwards, every time Wanglong Company picks up goods from Jigang Company, Jigang Company should handle it with the "Delivery Notice" issued by Industrial Bank Jinan Branch. On the day of receiving the "Delivery Notice", Jigang Company immediately issued the "Delivery Notice" to Industrial Bank Jinan Branch, and handled the shipment matters with Wanglong Company in accordance with the provisions of the "Delivery Notice". If Jigang Company violates the above regulations to handle the delivery procedures for Wanglong Company, it shall bear joint and several repayment responsibilities to the Jinan Branch of Industrial Bank.

On February 27, 2012, Jigang Company was renamed Shangang Company, and on February 28, 2012, Shangang Jinan Company was established. Shan Gang Company agrees that Shan Gang Jinan Company will continue to fulfill the relevant responsibilities and obligations of Ji Gang Company in the "Confirmation Warehouse Business Tripartite Cooperation Agreement", and the other two parties also acknowledge this.

On August 14, 2012, Industrial Bank Jinan Branch (acceptor) and Wanglong Company (acceptor) signed the "Commercial Bill Bank Acceptance Contract". It is agreed that Industrial Bank Jinan Branch will handle a bank acceptance bill of 81.5 million yuan for Wanglong Company, with a term from August 14, 2012 to February 14, 2013. On August 15, 2012, Industrial Bank Jinan Branch delivered 17 bank acceptance bills totaling 81.5 million yuan from Wanglong Company as the drawer and Shangang Jinan Company as the payee to Shangang Jinan Company, fulfilling its obligations in accordance with the "Confirmed Warehouse Business Tripartite Cooperation Agreement". Afterwards, without receiving the delivery notice from Industrial Bank Jinan Branch, Shangang Jinan Company did not return the remaining 57.05 million yuan acceptance bill to Industrial Bank Jinan Branch in accordance with the "Confirmed Warehouse Business Tripartite Cooperation Agreement", and delivered the equivalent goods to Wanglong Company on its own.

The Commercial Draft Bank Acceptance Contract signed between Industrial Bank Jinan Branch and Wanglong Company expired on February 14, 2013, and Wanglong Company failed to fulfill its repayment obligations as stipulated in the contract. As of March 25, 2013, Wanglong Company owed a total of 56707177.04 yuan in advance payment principal and 1081765.24 yuan in interest on bank acceptance bills to Industrial Bank Jinan Branch.

Industrial Bank Jinan Branch filed a lawsuit to the court requesting that Wanglong Company repay the amount of 57.05 million yuan under the bank acceptance bill and bear interest of 1081765.24 yuan; Shan Steel Company and Shan Steel Jinan Company shall bear joint and several liability for the repayment of the above-mentioned debts.

（2） Judgment results

The Shandong Provincial High People's Court held in the second instance that the "Confirmed Warehouse Business Tripartite Cooperation Agreement" signed between Industrial Bank Jinan Branch, Jigang Company, and Wanglong Company was signed to ensure the performance of various credit business transactions between Wanglong Company and Industrial Bank Jinan Branch from February 24, 2012 to February 23, 2013. According to the agreement, a trade contract relationship is established between Wanglong Company and Jigang Company. Wanglong Company applies to the Jinan Branch of Industrial Bank for the issuance of a bank acceptance bill as a financing method, and the bank acceptance bill of Jigang Company will be directly paid by the Jinan Branch of Industrial Bank to Jigang Company. Wanglong Company will pay the full amount of the bill to the Jinan Branch of Industrial Bank before the bank acceptance bill expires, Industrial Bank Jinan Branch issues a delivery notice to Jigang Company based on the amount and progress of ticket payments made by Wanglong Company, and Jigang Company ships goods to Wanglong Company based on the delivery notice issued by Industrial Bank Jinan Branch; If Jigang Company fails to receive the delivery notice from Industrial Bank Jinan Branch and delivers goods to Wanglong Company, it shall bear joint and several repayment responsibilities for Wanglong Company's debts. Later, due to the renaming of Jigang Company to Shangang Company, the assets, liabilities, equity, business, and other rights and obligations of the original Jigang Company were inherited by Shangang Jinan Company. Shangang Jinan Company failed to fulfill the "Confirmed Warehouse Business Tripartite Cooperation Agreement" as agreed, which constitutes a breach of contract. Industrial Bank Jinan Branch requires Shangang Jinan Company to bear joint and several repayment responsibilities in accordance with the contract and legal provisions. Therefore, Shangang Company and Shangang Jinan Company should jointly assume joint and several repayment responsibilities for Wanglong Company's debts. Industrial Bank Jinan Branch advanced the bank acceptance bill payment for Wanglong Company in accordance with the contract, fulfilling the contractual obligations. If Wanglong Company fails to deposit the full amount of the bill of exchange with Industrial Bank Jinan Branch before the expiration of the bank acceptance bill as agreed in the contract, it shall bear the repayment responsibility and pay interest as agreed in the contract. Thus, it was ruled that Wanglong Company would repay Industrial Bank Jinan Branch's bank acceptance bill advance payment principal of 56707177.04 yuan and interest of 1081765.24 yuan; Shangang Company and Shangang Jinan Company shall bear joint and several liability for the repayment obligations of Wanglong Company.

（3） Typical significance

This case is the first confirmed warehouse dispute case in Shandong Province, and the judgment in this case has played a good exemplary role. Confirmed warehouse "refers to a financial service that uses bank credit as the carrier, bank acceptance bills as the settlement tool, the bank controls the ownership of the goods, the seller is entrusted to keep the goods, and the seller repurchases the amount other than the acceptance bill deposit as a guarantee measure. The bank provides a bank acceptance bill to the seller and buyer. Confirmed warehouse, as a new type of financing method, ensures payment for the seller; For buyers, it reduces financing costs; For banks, it ensures the safety of funds. The judgment in this case fully reflects the functional role of the people's court in supporting new types of financing methods and regulating the development of the financing market.

3、 Dispute between CCTV International Network Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Quandou Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. on Infringement of Work Information Network Communication Rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

China on the Tongue "is a large-scale food documentary produced by CCTV, which has had a strong social impact and enjoys high popularity after its broadcast. CCTV subsequently granted the copyright of the program to the plaintiff CCTV International Network Co., Ltd. On May 23, 2012, the Shanghai Jing'an Notary Office, upon the application of the plaintiff, notarized the defendant Shanghai Quandou Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. for providing online on-demand services for the involved programs on its website "Tudou Network" (www.tudou. com). The plaintiff believes that Tudou Network, without permission, provided online on-demand services during the hot broadcasting period of the program in question, seriously infringing on its legitimate rights and causing significant economic losses to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff sued the court and requested that the defendant compensate for the economic losses of 800000 yuan and pay a reasonable fee of 50000 yuan for investigation and evidence collection.

（2） Judgment results

The Minhang District People's Court of Shanghai and the First Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai have held that the work in question is a work created using similar cinematography methods as stipulated in China's Copyright Law and should be protected by the Copyright Law. All Tudou Company provides online on-demand services for the involved works on its website during the hot broadcast period without authorization, which is a typical infringement of the right to network dissemination of work information and should bear corresponding infringement liability. Quantu Company argues that it provides storage space services, and the work in question was uploaded by netizens, but no evidence has been provided to prove this claim; And the information about the actual uploader belongs to their own control and management scope, and should be provided by them. If they delete the original data on their own, which makes it impossible to identify the facts in this section, they should bear the adverse consequences. According to this judgment, Quantu Company shall compensate CCTV Network Company with an economic loss of 240000 yuan and a reasonable cost of 8000 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of infringement of the right to online dissemination of work information in the internet. The works involved in the case reflect a high degree of originality and enjoy high social awareness. As a professional video sharing website, Tudou Network is a highly influential professional network service provider. It spread the involved works without authorization during the hot broadcast period, and the infringement behavior lasted for a long time, causing significant economic losses to the rights holders. When determining the statutory compensation amount, the court fully considered factors such as the type of work involved, social awareness, nature of the infringement, as well as the business scale, business model, and influence of the infringing website, and awarded a total compensation amount of 248000 yuan. This not only helps to compensate for the economic losses of the rights holders, but also promotes self-discipline and industry management of various internet video providers, It also conforms to the trend of strengthening the protection of internet intellectual property rights in accordance with the law, and has a warning effect on the increasingly frequent cases of internet video infringement.

4、 Guo Desheng v. Administrative Penalty Case of the Land and Resources Bureau of Weihui City, Henan Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 2009, Guo Desheng built a breeding farm without going through land use procedures, occupying an actual land area of 220.50 square meters. On December 5, 2011, the Land and Resources Management Bureau of Weihui City, Henan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Weihui City Land and Resources Bureau) issued an administrative penalty decision (Wei Guo Tu Jian Zi (2011) No. 041) to the plaintiff Guo Desheng, requiring the plaintiff to demolish a new building of 220.50 square meters on illegally occupied 220.50 square meters of land, restore the land to its original state, and impose a fine of 4410 yuan. The plaintiff believes that the defendant's decision to impose punishment was incorrect in determining the facts, and has filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Weihui City, Henan Province, requesting the revocation of the punishment decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Weihui City, Henan Province believes that the plaintiff Guo Desheng's unauthorized occupation of land to build a breeding farm violates the relevant provisions of China's Land Management Law. The Weihui City Land and Resources Bureau should consider whether Guo Desheng's illegal occupation of land conforms to the overall local land use plan, An administrative penalty of demolishing buildings on illegally occupied land or confiscating buildings on illegally occupied land shall be imposed on Guo Desheng within a specified period of time. However, the drawings provided by the defendant indicating the specific location of Guo Desheng's illegal occupation of land were not accompanied by explanatory materials, and the defendant did not explain or explain the method for determining the location of the plaintiff's occupation of land in the court trial, making it impossible for the court to determine whether the land occupied by Guo Desheng is agricultural land or construction land, that is, whether the breeding farm constructed by the plaintiff conforms to the local land use overall plan, As a direct result, it is uncertain how the defendant should punish the plaintiff for their illegal behavior, namely whether to demolish or confiscate buildings on illegally occupied land. At the same time, according to the Administrative Penalty Law and other regulations, before the defendant makes a decision on the plaintiff to demolish a building within a specified time limit, which is a heavier administrative penalty, it should be decided through collective discussion by the leaders of the unit. However, the defendant did not provide evidence that the punishment decision made by the defendant to the plaintiff was decided through collective discussion by the leaders of the unit. Therefore, the main evidence of the defendant's punishment decision against the plaintiff is insufficient and does not comply with legal procedures, and should be revoked in accordance with the law. According to the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law, the judgment revokes the administrative penalty decision on the land illegal case made by the Weihui Municipal Land and Resources Bureau on December 5, 2011 against the plaintiff Guo Desheng, and the defendant shall handle it again.

After the first instance judgment was pronounced, neither party appealed, and the first instance judgment has taken legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

Article 38 (2) of the Administrative Penalty Law stipulates: "For complex or major illegal acts, the responsible persons of the administrative organs shall collectively discuss and decide on heavier administrative penalties." Article 27 of the Measures for the Investigation and Punishment of Land Illegal Cases by the National Land Administration Land illegal cases should be collectively reviewed by the leadership of the land management department, but the administrative head responsibility system should be implemented. The review should be recorded in writing and signed by the members participating in the review... "The above provisions establish a collective discussion system for the heads of administrative organs in the administrative penalty procedure, that is, before imposing heavier penalties on complex or major illegal acts, the heads of administrative organs should pass through party group meetings, joint meetings Conduct collective research through official meetings and other forms, and then make administrative penalty decisions.

Severe administrative penalties may have a significant impact on the rights of the punished person. If the penalty of demolishing buildings within a specified time limit is imposed by the Chinese land resources department in this case, once executed, it will result in irreversible consequences such as house loss. Even if the penalty decision is revoked through administrative litigation procedures, there is no longer a possibility of restoring the original state. Through collective discussions among leaders, it is not only possible to prevent individual leaders from abusing their power, but also to maximize the democratic and scientific nature of administrative decision-making, avoiding arbitrary decision-making.

5、 Dai Shihua v. Jinan Public Security Fire Brigade Fire Administrative Acceptance Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 24, 2011, Jinan Old City Renovation Company submitted an application for acceptance filing to the Jinan Public Security Fire Brigade, requesting a spot check and acceptance of the fire facilities in buildings 1-8 of the Shantytown Renovation Project south of Guanyi Street. After conducting a random inspection by the Fire Brigade of Jinan Public Security Bureau, on November 21, 2011, the Notice on the Results of Construction Project Fire Acceptance Filing (JGXYB [2011] No. 0172) was issued, confirming that the fire facilities of Building 1-8 of the Shantytown Renovation Project south of Guanyi Street passed the random inspection. On the same day, the filing results were announced in the public column of the fire supervision results of Shandong 365 Fire Service Network. Dai Shihua, a resident of Room 801, Unit 3, No. 6 of the project, believes that the installation of fire hydrant boxes in the building does not comply with the fire safety installation standards. The JigongXiaoyanbei [2011] No. 0172 "Notice on the Record Results of Construction Project Fire Acceptance" finds the facts wrong and files an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court of Jinan High tech Zone.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Jinan High tech Zone held in the first instance that the "Notice on the Filing Results of Construction Project Fire Inspection and Acceptance" is a technical acceptance notice, not a specific administrative act, and does not fall within the scope of administrative litigation by the People's Court. In accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law and other regulations, it ruled to dismiss the plaintiff Dai Shihua's lawsuit.

The Intermediate People's Court of Jinan City held in the second instance that the record keeping of fire safety acceptance for construction projects is the final step in the quality supervision and management of fire safety facilities for construction projects. The record keeping results include an assessment of whether the fire safety completion acceptance is qualified. According to the provisions of the Fire Protection Law, if the construction project fails to pass the acceptance by the public security fire department, it should be stopped from use. Therefore, the record keeping results of fire safety acceptance have binding force, The act of filing for fire inspection and acceptance has the nature of administrative confirmation, which is a specific administrative action of the fire administrative agency and falls within the scope of administrative litigation by the people's court. In accordance with Article 618 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the original ruling is revoked and the People's Court of Jinan High tech Zone is designated to continue the trial.

（3） Typical significance

Currently, the fire safety situation is unprecedentedly severe. As a front-end gateway for fire safety, the responsibility for fire acceptance in construction projects is significant, but it has always been separated from judicial review, resulting in low social attention, poor procedural transparency, and arbitrary exercise of power, making it difficult to fully play its role. This case clarifies for the first time the administrative confirmation attribute of fire inspection and acceptance behavior, thus incorporating it into the scope of administrative litigation, which has important rule significance and will be conducive to urging fire authorities to strictly fulfill their inspection responsibilities, and more conducive to ensuring the safety of people's lives and property. At the same time, through legal analysis, the fire department recognized the legitimacy of judicial review and actively prepared to participate in subsequent litigation. The court ultimately upheld the filing result notice. After the judgment, the case was extensively reported by multiple important media outlets such as "Dazhong Daily" and "Jinan Daily", and was included in Volume 7 of the "China Administrative Trial Cases" by the Supreme People's Court. It also won the second prize for excellent business achievements in administrative trials by the National Court in 2013, achieving good legal and social effects.