Crime is a bad thing. No matter what crime it is, it will be punished by law, but crimes will have some content. So how to write the content of unit crimes? This needs to be considered. You cannot commit a crime later. Doing nothing and resigning yourself to fate is a bad thing. You must change your own punishment level and sentencing through your own repentance. How to write unit crime and what is the content Unit crime Unit crime refers to behaviors endangering society that are carried out by companies, enterprises, institutions, agencies, and groups that should bear criminal responsibility according to law. Unit crime surrender is based on unit crime. Without unit crime, there would be no research on the problem of surrender. Standards for Filing Cases of Unit Crimes The following two conditions must be met for unit crimes to be filed: first, there are criminal facts, and second, the criminal facts require criminal liability in accordance with the law. Crimes committed by units are the same as crimes committed by natural persons. To investigate criminal liability, there must first be criminal facts, that is, the existence of behavior that reflects the will of the unit and is harmful to society. This is the basis of criminal cases. If there are no criminal facts, there will be no criminal liability. However, it is not enough to have criminal facts. If this kind of behavior (criminal facts) is not clearly stipulated in the criminal law to bear criminal responsibility, a case cannot be filed for prosecution. Just like investigating the criminal liability of a natural person, the unit must also meet the two conditions for filing a case before it can file a case to pursue its criminal liability. Partial template of a defense statement for a crime committed by a unit—a defense statement for a crime committed by an ordinary employee of the unit Dear presiding judge and judge: A law firm in Guangdong accepted the entrustment from the father of the defendant Huang Moumou in accordance with the law and with the consent of Huang Moumou himself, assigned us to serve as the judge for suspected counterfeiting. Defender of Huang Moumou, the defendant in the case of registered trademark crime. After reviewing the case file materials, meeting the defendant and participating in the court hearing, we believe that: Huang Moumou should not be held criminally responsible for the crime committed by a unit of Guangzhou XX Electronics Co., Ltd. The specific reasons are: 1. The court investigation clearly shows: Huang Moumou neither "actively participated" nor "played a major role." Through the court trial confessions of the defendants Lin Moumou, Wang Moumou and Wang Moumou in this case, and comparing the witness testimony and other evidence, the following facts are very clear: First, The criminal intent of the unit crime in this case was proposed by Wang Mousheng, decided by Lin Mou, and specifically implemented by Wang Mou and others. Huang Mou was neither involved in the "conspiracy" nor was he directly responsible. First of all, Huang Moumou did not participate in the conspiracy. The presentation and decision-making process of the unit’s criminal intent in this case can be reflected from the confessions of Lin Moumou, Wang Moumou and Wang Moumou during the trial, and can also be reflected from the following interrogation transcripts: 1. Wang Moumou was interrogated on November 14, 2007 2. The transcript of the interrogation of Lin on August 22, 2007, page 1, line 3 and below; 3. The transcript of the interrogation of Wang on October 24, 2007, page 2 of 9 —The statements made by the above-mentioned defendants on page 18 and the litigation representatives of Guangzhou XX Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "XX Company") Lin Sheng and Huang XX himself all deny that Huang XX participated in the "collusion" and did not Other evidence proves that Huang Moumou participated in the "collusion". Therefore, it cannot be concluded that Huang Moumou participated in the "collusion". Secondly, Huang Moumou cannot be the directly responsible person. The fact that Huang Moumou is not the directly responsible person can be simply confirmed from Lin Moumou's confession during the trial: When Lin Moumou was asked what work Huang Moumou was responsible for in the unit, he replied: I know Huang Moumou. But I don’t know exactly what he does in the company! - An employee who doesn’t even know what he does in the company can’t have much responsibility or role in the company, let alone participate in the company as a directly responsible person. crime. Second, Huang Moumou is an ordinary employee of the unit and plays a very limited role in the unit's crimes. First of all, Huang Moumou is a general employee of the unit, and his work is assigned by Wang Moumou.

The facts of the trial showed that Huang Moumou neither signed a written labor contract nor an employment contract when he joined "XX Company" in Guangzhou. His job was to be temporarily responsible for the sales of stall C23 on the fifth floor of the Electronic City, Nanfang Building, the unit of "XX Company". The financial work of the department (hereinafter referred to as the "Sales Department"), specifically: inputting the sales documents involved in the case into the computer, and keeping the cash and accounts of the sales department. Judging from the evidence such as the industrial and commercial registration materials cited by the public prosecutor: the person in charge of "XX Company" is the legal representative of the company, Lin Moumou, and the company's shareholders are Lin Moumou and Wang Moumou. Lin Moumou, Wang Moumou and several other defendants identified Wang Moumou as the person in charge of the company's "sales department". This can be found in the first line of page 2 of the transcript of Wang Moumou's interrogation on November 14, 2007. Confirm. Through the above evidence and other evidence, the personnel organization chart of a certain company is clearly drawn: Lin Moumou: unit supervisor; Wang Moumou and Wang Moumou: heads of departments; Huang Moumou: under the leadership of Wang Moumou General staff. Secondly, the degree of criminal behavior of the unit in which Huang Moumou participated was very low, the number was very small, and the circumstances were obviously minor. Although Huang Moumou had also accepted customer orders and sales work, these behaviors had the following characteristics: first, these tasks were not his job; second, his participation in these tasks was based on orders and was not an active participation; Third, his participation in these tasks was an occasional act of assistance when other relevant personnel were too busy. The degree, frequency and quantity of his participation were very small, and the circumstances were obviously minor. Finally, the sales department where Huang worked played a small role in the unit's crimes, which indirectly confirmed that its role was very limited. During the trial, the prosecutor pointed out that the unit's crime in this case was divided into three stages and involved three departments: first, the unit's production department produced semi-finished products, and then a "certain processing plant" combined the semi-finished products and the pre-prepared dough shells marked with counterfeit registered trademarks. etc. are combined and packaged, and finally sold by the "sales department". We believe that the prosecutor's opinion is correct. By analyzing the roles of the above-mentioned different departments in the unit's crime at different stages, we believe that "a certain processing plant" played a key role in the unit's crime, while the "sales department" played a smaller role: First, when the unit supervisor proposed After counterfeiting someone else's registered trademark and deciding to implement it, it can be said that "a certain processing plant" is the specific implementation of this counterfeiting behavior, and the sales department can be said to be the behavior of "selling stolen goods" and helping behavior. Secondly, from the perspective of the criminal form, the criminal behavior of the unit has been completed when a "certain processing factory" assembled the counterfeit registered trademark on the Bluetooth headset involved. The sales behavior of the unit's sales department cannot alone determine the unit's criminal behavior. The criminal constitution and completion of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks; finally, from the analysis of the provisions of judicial interpretations, Article 13 of the Supreme Judicial Organ’s "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement" stipulates that a unit that has registered a counterfeit The trademark act and the act of selling the counterfeit goods are treated as the crime of "counterfeiting registered trademarks" by the unit, which reflects that the highest judicial authority believes that an unit's counterfeiting behavior is more serious than the unit's behavior of selling counterfeit goods. manner. 2. According to the provisions of Article 31 of my country’s Criminal Law, Huang Moumou should not be sentenced. Article 31 of my country’s Criminal Law stipulates: If a unit commits a crime, the unit shall be sentenced to a fine, and the person in charge who is directly responsible and other persons who are directly responsible shall be fined. Personnel were sentenced. We believe that Huang Moumou is neither the "directly responsible person in charge" nor the "other directly responsible person" stipulated in this article. Therefore, he should not be sentenced. It goes without saying that Huang Moumou is not a "directly responsible person in charge." Our country's criminal law does not define "other directly responsible persons". Combining the understanding of the legislative spirit of unit crimes by judicial practice departments and criminal law theoretical circles, especially the specific practices in judicial practice, we believe that Huang Moumou does not belong to "other directly responsible persons". ", the reasons are: First, my country's judicial practice has always insisted on defining "other directly responsible persons" as "personnel who specifically committed the crime and played a larger role in the unit's crime."

Comparing with other evidence, it can be determined that his statement of facts is objective and true. When we met with him, he wrote a "Letter of Repentance" in his own handwriting, expressing his profound and correct understanding and attitude towards the case, and expressed regret that he had done illegal things because he did not understand the law. We learned that Huang Moumou is a young man who has studied abroad, has excellent economic conditions and a happy family, and has recently started working. Originally, this young man and his family planned to hold a wedding for him on National Day last year, but due to the case currently being heard, he entered the detention center before the wedding. The bright future he originally had has suddenly become unpredictable - now, he is facing the danger of having a criminal record and a gloomy future! As you can imagine: in this case, this young man has lost a lot, and he has been affected. Severe sanctions were imposed! In a certain sense, being detained and put on trial has achieved the purpose of preventing Huang from committing crimes. The purpose of punishment should focus on crime prevention rather than punishment and retaliation. When the purpose of crime prevention has been achieved, if Huang is further punished for the unit's crimes, it will be detrimental to his education. Conclusion: We believe that the collegial panel will be able to make a fair judgment against Huang Moumou. We have noticed that the victims in this case are all well-known foreign companies. The potential international impact of this case and the calls from Western countries for our government to increase the protection of intellectual property rights , my country has strengthened the judicial environment for intellectual property protection, and relevant departments have paid special attention to the case (perhaps this case has attracted the attention of relevant leaders), but these cannot be used as reasons to expand the investigation of other persons directly responsible for unit crimes. At the same time, we also imagine that these factors put extraordinary pressure on the collegial panel to correctly handle this case. How to grasp the scope of persons who should be held criminally responsible for unit crimes is a confusing and difficult issue in theory and practice, but we believe that the advanced judicial concepts possessed by the judges of the collegial panel will be able to handle this issue well. !The facts are clear, and we believe that Huang Moumou will definitely get a fair judgment against him! Thank you! We also hope not to commit crimes. There is no benefit to committing crimes. Once sanctioned by the law, this life will be bad. Every day of committing crimes will be punished. If you are afraid, not only your family will be sad for you, but the best policy is to spend every day well, live a good life, and live a down-to-earth life.