The reconsideration of the Gu Chujun case is in session. In court, the umpire read out the pre-trial conference report.
The original defendant, Gu Chujun, misrepresented registered capital, disclosed irregularities, did not disclose important information, diverted funds for retrial, and the Supreme People's Court held a pre-trial meeting on May 18, 2018 in the First Circuit Court of the Court.
According to the highest judge micro live broadcast message, after the pre-trial meeting, the deliberation chamber decided by the deliberation:
(a) Questions concerning new evidence submitted by both parties
Agreed to submit the proof materials submitted by Gu Chujun 1. The two evidence materials submitted by Zhang Hong and the seven evidence materials submitted by the prosecution agency were included as new evidence in the court investigation. Other evidence submitted by Gu Chujun was unanimously considered not to be new evidence, but there was In case of disputes, opinions may be given at court hearings.
(2) Questions on the application for obtaining evidence materials
Agreed to obtain Gu Chujun’s first evidential material, that is, the relevant materials of the China Securities Regulatory Commission on the investigation of Kelon Electrical Appliances, and part of the evidentiary material of the third application, that is, whether the Guangdong Science and Technology Department was in 2002 or 2003 in Shunde. Greenkell awarded high-tech enterprise certification.
After the pre-trial conference, the court has sent a notice of evidence collection to the Science and Technology Department of Guangdong Province and the China Securities Regulatory Commission. The Guangdong Provincial Science and Technology Department submitted a reply letter to Yueteng Gaozi '2018'1026 on May 26 to the Court. On June 6, the China Securities Regulatory Commission submitted to the Court “Replied to Provision of Related Materials for the Guchu Army Case.” The court notified the prosecutors and defendants of their review before the court hearing. The two new evidences will be investigated in court. To demonstrate, cross-examination.
With regard to the second application filed by Gu Chujun, after the review of this court, there was no case where the original or second instance tried to hear cases of illegal intervention; in the fifth application, the prosecutor did not need to call for reasonable explanation. For the above two applications, The court does not support it.
With regard to the fourth application filed by Gu Chujun, the defense had withdrawn during the pre-court meeting; the material pointed to by the sixth application was already collected in the original file and no need to re-acquire it.
In the pre-trial meeting, the defense filed its purpose of submitting evidence 10. The purpose of the defense was to apply for KPMG Huazhen Certified Public Accountants to report on Kelon Electric's financial investigation. After the pretrial meeting, the court commissioned the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court to send KPMG Huazheng. The accounting firm requisitioned the financial investigation report of Kelon Electric. KPMG Huazhen Certified Public Accountants provided the “Report on the investigation report on the cash flow to Kelon Electric” on June 8. Both sides of the inspection and defense have considered that they need not The report was presented as a new evidence during the court investigation, the cross-examination. The court agreed to examine the opinions of both parties after research.
(3) Questions about applying for witnesses to appear in court
For the defendants' applications for Xie Boyang, Ou Guangyuan, Wang Rongping, Wei Wuzhou and other four persons to testify in court, the prosecution and the defense agreed on the opinions of the above-mentioned personnel. The court decided to notify Xie Boyang and Wei Wuzhou as witnesses to testify in court in response to the needs of the above-mentioned personnel. .
For the defendant's application for Jia Chunwang to testify in court, the prosecutor believed that Jia Chunwang did not belong to the scope of the witness prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Law. The court concluded that the prosecution's opinion was established.
(4) Issues concerning the listing of evidence in the original second instance ruling
For evidence of dispute between the prosecutors and the defendants, the court will cross-examine groups for cross-examination, and no objections will be cross-examined.
(e) About other matters
1. After the pre-trial meeting, the Defence submitted that the “Announcement on the Survey Results of KPMG Huazhen Certified Public Accountants” issued by Kelon Electric, which was notarized by the Beijing Chang'an Notary Public Office on January 23, 2006, was filed during the retrial. It was not presented in the pre-court meeting and was requested to be included in the court's investigation. After consultation with the prosecutor, the prosecution had no objection. The court decided to include the notice in the court investigation, to display it during the trial, and cross-examination.
2. During the pre-trial meeting, the defense filed a major challenge to the original “payment notice” submitted by the prosecutor as new evidence and the “Opinion on Examination of Technical Evidence”. In response to the challenge, the prosecution applied to this court after the pre-trial meeting. Liu Shu, who has specialized knowledge, puts forward opinions on specific issues. After studying the case, the court decided to consent to the prosecution application in order to fully ascertain the facts of the case.
3. After the pre-trial conference, the defendant Zhang Xihan appointed Zhang Youxue, a lawyer of Guangdong Junyi Law Firm, as the defender. Upon inquiry, Zhang Youxue’s lawyer evaded the provisions of Article 10 of the Rules of the People’s Court for Handling Criminal Cases before the Trial (Trial). Such matters as no objection.