After the victim appealed against the second instance judgment, the case initiated a retrial procedure. After examination, the retrial court found that there were errors in the application of the law and the sentencing was too lenient in the second instance judgment. Can the sentence be changed to increase the original defendant's punishment? Recently, the reporter learned from the General Crime Procuratorate of the Supreme People's Procuratorate that after the Supreme People's Procuratorate's appeal, the Supreme People's Court adopted the Supreme People's Procuratorate's appeal opinion and re examined the intentional injury case of a certain Qing in accordance with the law. The defendant was sentenced to seven years and six months in prison and deprived of political rights for one year (already executed) for the crimes of intentional injury and intentional destruction of property. This verdict is also a clear response to the above-mentioned issues. More than 20 years ago, Yu Mouqing and Li Jie (pseudonym) had a grudge over business competition. Yu Mouqing instructed his employee Tang Mouhu to beat Li Jie seriously. Yu Mouqing still felt that it was not enough to relieve his hatred, so he discussed with Tang Mouhu about destroying Li Jie's newly purchased small car. Later, Tang Mouhu set fire to the car and burned it down. In February 2005, the Jianhu County Court in Jiangsu Province sentenced the defendant Yu Mouqing to eleven years and six months in prison and deprived him of political rights for two years on charges of intentional injury and intentional destruction of property. The defendant Tang Mouhu was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and deprived of political rights for four years on charges of intentional injury and arson, and the two were required to compensate for economic losses. After the defendant appealed, in April 2005, the Intermediate People's Court of Yancheng City revised the sentence of Yu Mouqing for intentional injury, sentencing him to six years in prison and depriving him of political rights for one year; Tang Mouhu was convicted of intentional injury and arson and sentenced to eleven years in prison, deprived of political rights for two years, and both of them must bear civil compensation liability. The victim Li Jie is dissatisfied and has appealed to the Jiangsu Provincial High Court and the Supreme Court. In February 2009, the Supreme Court ordered the Jiangsu Provincial High Court to conduct a retrial on the grounds of an error in the application of the law in the original judgment. After trial, the Provincial High Court found that the revocation of the second instance judgment on the crime of intentional destruction of property by a certain Qing was indeed a mistake in the application of the law. However, based on the original Article 386 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, which stated that "except for those protested by the People's Procuratorate, the retrial generally shall not increase the punishment of the defendant in the original trial...", the second instance judgment was upheld in April 2015. Li Jie and Tang Mouhu are dissatisfied and believe that the original verdict omitted the defendant Yu Mouqing's intentional destruction of property, resulting in a disproportionate sentencing. They have appealed to the Jiangsu Provincial Procuratorate and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate has instructed the Jiangsu Provincial Procuratorate to conduct a legal review. After review, the Jiangsu Provincial Procuratorate concluded that there were errors in the second instance judgment and retrial ruling, and submitted a protest to the Supreme People's Procuratorate in August 2021. After examination, the Supreme People's Procuratorate for Ordinary Crimes believes that Yu Mouqing's behavior constitutes the crimes of intentional injury and intentional destruction of property. The retrial ruling incorrectly applied the provision that "the retrial generally cannot increase the punishment of the defendant in the original trial", maintaining the erroneous judgment of the original second trial and resulting in a new error in the application of the law. In October 2023, the Supreme People's Procuratorate filed a protest to the Supreme People's Court in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court, after trial and adopting the appeal opinion of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, made the above judgment in May this year. The head of the General Criminal Prosecution Department of the Supreme People's Procuratorate told reporters that it cannot be generalized whether the retrial can increase the punishment of the original defendant, but different situations should be distinguished: for retrial cases initiated by the original defendant and their close relatives' unilateral appeals, it is generally not appropriate to increase the punishment of the original defendant; For retrial caused by the appeal of the victim in the original trial, or for cases where there are errors in the determination of facts, application of laws, etc. in the original effective judgment, and the sentencing is obviously too light, the sentence can be increased and revised, and the increased punishment of the defendant in the original trial should not be excluded from the scope of correction. The appeal and revision of the verdict in this case corrected the erroneous judgment in accordance with the law, ultimately resolving the conflict between the two parties and concluding the case. This is a powerful practice of 'striving to make the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case'. ”The deputies to the National People's Congress and the provincial people's congress who attended the trial approved the handling of the case. (New Society)