On September 17, 2018, the Shenhe District Court of Shenyang City pronounced the verdict on the retrial case of Wang Zhongming, the former secretary of the Party Committee of the Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Wang Zhongming (data map)

Two years ago, on June 16, 2016, the Shenhe District Court ruled against Wang Zhongming in the first instance, found Wang Zhongming guilty of accepting bribes, sentenced him to 7 years in prison, and fined 500,000 yuan; recovered Wang Zhongming's bribery income of 800,000 yuan.

The prosecution accused at the time that Wang Zhongming took advantage of his position in charge of infrastructure projects to accept bribes from four people four times, totaling 1 million yuan. Wang Zhongming refused to accept and filed an appeal.

The criminal ruling issued by the Shenyang Intermediate People's Court on December 7, 2016 showed that the court of first instance was not clear about the fact that Wang Zhongming committed the crime of accepting bribes, and the evidence was insufficient; the judgment of the first instance was revoked and sent back to the court of first instance for a new trial.

After the case was sent back for retrial, on September 17, the Shenhe District Court pronounced the verdict after the retrial. It held that Wang Zhongming had repeated confessions before court, denied the fact of accepting bribes during the trial, and some of the evidence in the case had doubts and flaws.Other evidence supports the evidence that Wang Zhongming committed the crime of accepting bribes. The evidence for the crime of accepting bribes has not formed a complete evidence system. Therefore, the charges of the public prosecution cannot be established. Based on this, Wang Zhongming was found not guilty.

According to the public resume, Wang Zhongming was born in Hebei in 1968. Before the incident, he worked at the Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, as the secretary of the party committee, secretary of the discipline inspection committee, and deputy director.

Before the acquittal in this retrial, in January this year, a secretary of the Disciplinary Committee was falsely accused of taking bribes from the scientists of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the court collectively complained about his grievances, which attracted attention.

When the first instance trial was held, more than 50 employees of the Institute of Metals, Chinese Academy of Sciences spontaneously attended the hearing. Among them were scientists, leading cadres, and deputies to the National People’s Congress. According to an online post, after the hearing, 27 of them jointly signed a request to the court to find out the truth in accordance with the law and conduct a fair trial. The scientists of the Chinese Academy of SciencesWe found that based on these so-called evidences, it can be judged that Wang Zhongming is innocent according to common sense.

Now that Wang Zhongming has been acquitted, is the problem reflected in the above online post true?From the fixed-term imprisonment of 7 years in the first trial to the acquittal verdict in the retrial, what is the main reason for the court to change the sentence?In this regard, He Bing, the lawyer representing Wang Zhongming and a professor at China University of Political Science and Law, accepted an exclusive interview with Zhengshi (WeChat ID: xjbzse).

The case of Wang Zhongming has been going on for 4 years since he was detained in 2014. Has Wang Zhongming been acquitted now?

He Bing: The court made a retrial judgment on September 17, finding Wang Zhongming not guilty of accepting bribes and declaring Wang Zhongming innocent.However, this does not exactly mean that the case has come to an end.

According to the law, the procuratorate still has 10 days to protest after the court retrials the verdict.The case ended here, and Wang Zhongming completely returned to his innocence.

So how is Wang Zhongming's mental state now?

He Bing: Wang Zhongming is very happy that the sentence was changed to not guilty. Moreover, this personal experience made him tell the general secretary that his efforts to make the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case have a deeper understanding.After being acquitted today (September 17), he said, thanks to the party, I will continue to work for the party.

From the fixed-term imprisonment of 7 years in the first instance judgment to the acquittal verdict in the retrial, what is the main reason for the court to change the sentence?

He Bing: The main reason for the revision of the sentence was the issue of evidence. The evidence proving that Wang Zhongming committed the crime of accepting bribes did not form a complete chain of evidence, and some evidence was proved to be untrue after verification.

Wang Zhongming (third from the right)

Which specific evidence is problematic?

He Bing: According to the requirements, the procuratorate's interrogation must be videotaped throughout.We put all the interrogation content presented in the video into text, and compared it with the interrogation transcript, and found that there were some inconsistencies between the two.Some are written in the transcript, but not in the video; some are said by the parties in the video, but they cannot be found in the transcript.

In particular, some key evidence, the key evidence proving that Wang Zhongming accepted bribes, also has such problems.For example, the video shows that the investigators asked Wang Zhongming, can the accountant pay without your signature?Wang Zhongming said, this is impossible.However, there is no such content in the transcript.

Furthermore, some transcripts are not synchronized with the video, and there is a time difference.Normally, the transcript should be carried out almost simultaneously with the interrogation, and the process of the interrogation should be recorded truthfully.However, after checking the video and transcripts, we found that some transcripts were formed before the video.

There are reports that Wang Zhongming denied all the prosecution’s allegations in court during the trial of the first instance, and a witness who originally confirmed that he had bribed Wang Zhongming also retracted his confession in court and overturned his own testimony. Are these reports true??

He Bing: During the trial of the first instance, Wang Zhongming denied all the allegations made by the prosecution in court, and believed that the fact of accepting bribes he accused did not exist; there was indeed a witness who appeared in court as a briber and denied himself in court.The fact of bribing Wang Zhongming. It is reported that more than 50 employees of the Chinese Academy of Sciences attended the hearing of the first trial, including scientists, leading cadres, and representatives of the National People's Congress. Later, more than 20 of them jointly signed a request to the court to find out the truth according to law. Is this true?

He Bing: When the first instance trial was held, many employees of the Chinese Academy of Sciences did attend the hearing, and some people did sign the case afterwards, because they did not believe that Wang Zhongming took bribes, and they believed that the prosecution's evidence was questionable.

It is reported that after Wang Zhongming was acquitted, as a lawyer, one of the experiences you have summed up is that you have to complain publicly when you have grievances. Is this how you feel?

He Bing: In fact, my deepest feeling is that the case must be clearly explained in court, and the facts of the case must be fully presented through the open trial process of the court, not only for the members of the collegial panel, but also for the observers presentListen clearly, observers are also very important, and we must give full play to the role of trial supervision in our country's legal system.

In addition, if you think that the trial of the case is indeed incorrect or unfair, you can report the facts of the case to the relevant departments according to the law.Department, reflecting the problems in the trial of the case.In addition, although the four words are often used to describe the process of the court trial, I think that as an agent, it is more important to remain objective and rational, and to state the facts objectively and rationally.