Note: This translation was posted on March 24, 2021, but the blog post is dated August, 6, 2004 in order to comport with the date the judgment was issued.
Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou, Zhejiang
Criminal Judgment
(2004) Hang Criminal First Instance No. 391
The public prosecution agency was the People's Procuratorate of Hangzhou, Zhejiang.
Defendant Liu Fenggang, male, born [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], 1959, Han ethnicity, associates degree, unemployed, residing at [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], Haidian District, Beijing. On October 13, 2003, he was placed under residential confinement at a designated location by the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch, on suspicion of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad. On November 14 of the same year he was taken into criminal detention, and on December 4 of the same year the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch authorized his arrest. On May 14, 2004, he was placed under under residential confinement at a designated location on the decision of this Court.
Defense counsel Zhao Jian is a lawyer at the Beijing Zhenghai Law Firm.
Defendant Xu Yonghai, male, born [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], 1960, Han ethnicity, originally from Beijing, bachelors degree, physician at the Beijing Fusuijing (Ping An) Hospital, residing at [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], Xicheng District, Beijing. On November 9, 2003, he was taken into criminal detention by the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch, on suspicion of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad. On December 4 of the same year the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch authorized his arrest. On May 14, 2004, he was placed under residential confinement at a designated location on the decision of this Court.
Defense counsel Qian Lieyang is a lawyer at the Beijing Zhongfu Law Firm.
Defendant Zhang Shengqi, male, born [INTENTIONALLY DELETED], 1974, Han ethnicity, originally from Cao County in Shandong, junior high school education, farmer, residing at Zhangdian Village, Wangji Township, Cao County, Shandong. On November 17, 2003, he was taken into criminal detention by the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch, on suspicion of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad. On December 4 of the same year the Public Security Bureau of Hangzhou, Xiaoshan District Branch authorized his arrest. On May 14, 2004, he was placed under residential confinement at a designated location on the decision of this Court.
Defense counsel Xu Ping is a lawyer at the Beijing Zhongfu Law Firm.
In the Hang Procuratorate Criminal Indictment (2004) No. 46 indictment the People's Procuratorate of Hangzhou charged defendants Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi with spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and filed a public prosecution with this Court on March [day missing in original], 2004. This Court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and, because it involved state secrets, proceeded to try this case in closed court. The People's Procuratorate of Hangzhou appointed acting Procurator Zhao Linjie to appear in support of the public prosecution, and defendants Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi and their defense counsels Zhao Jian, Qian Lieyang, and Xu Ping appeared in court to participate in the proceedings. The trial has now concluded.
The People's Procuratorate of Hangzhou charged: in the middle of October 2001, defendant Xu Yonghai provided RMB 1,000 to defendant Liu Fenggang for business travel expenses, and Liu Fenggang traveled to Anshan, Liaoning in order to understand the circumstances of Liu Baozhi's reeducation through labor. Afterwards, Li Fenggang wrote an article titled "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," and Xu Yonghai then provided this article to the distribution agency for the foreign magazine "Life Quarterly." This magazine published the entire article in its 20th edition.
On July 25, 2003, at the direction of foreign agents, Liu Fenggang fled to such places as Dongtong County in Wenzhou, Zhejiang and the Xiaoshan and Xihu districts of Hangzhou, and gathered information from relevant agents in those locations regarding their having been subjected to force. Afterwards he returned to Beijing and finished writing an article titled "Reports from the Motherland." On August 5 of that year, Liu Feng directed defendant Zhang Shengqi to provide it to foreign agents via email.
On August 18, 2003, Zhang Shengqi printed and emailed to overseas agents the article "Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing" which Liu Fenggang had written about the circumstances of his interrogation by police when he went to Dachengzi Township in Miyun County, Beijing on August 17 to participate in an illegal gathering.
In order to prove the aforementioned charges, the public prosecution authority read and produced evidence in court including: the statements and justifications of defendants Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi, the testimony of witness Li Baozhi, the verification conclusions provided by the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets and the State Security Bureau of Zhejiang. It also produced physical evidence in court including "Life Quarterly" magazine, an MP3 player, and a digital camera. It believes that the actions of defendants Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi constitute the commission of the crime of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and should be punished in accordance with the law.
Defendants Liu Fenggang, Xu Yonghai, and Zhang Shengqi do not object to the facts charged by the public prosecution agency, but they all submit that they do not constitute the commission of a crime.
Defense counsels for the three defendants separately submitted that the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets lacks verification qualifications, and that this case involves three articles that cannot be considered intelligence, and that the actions of the defendants does not constitute the commission of a crime.
It was ascertained at trial that:
In the middle of October 2001, after defendant Xu Yonghai learned that a woman named Li Baozhi in Anshan, Liaoning submitted an administrative appeal of her reeducation through labor decision and that the Intermediate People's Court of Anshan would be hearing the appeal in open court, he directed defendant Liu Fenggang to go to Anshan, Liaoning to gather information about the case. In addition, he provided RMB 1,000 for business travel expenses. Afterwards, Li Fenggang wrote an article titled "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," and Xu Yonghai then provided this article to the distribution agency for the foreign magazine "Life Quarterly." This magazine published the entire article in its 20th edition.
On July 25, 2003, at the direction of foreign agents, Liu Fenggang fled to such places as Dongtong County in Wenzhou, Zhejiang and the Xiaoshan and Xihu districts of Hangzhou, and gathered information from relevant agents in those locations regarding their having been subject to force. Afterwards he returned to Beijing and finished writing an article titled "Reports from the Motherland." On August 5 of that year, Liu Feng directed defendant Zhang Shengqi to provide it to foreign agents via email.
On August 17, 2003, Liu Fenggang participated in an illegal gathering in Dachengzi township in Miyun county, Beijing and was interrogated by the police. The following day Liu Fenggang wrote "Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing," which Zhang Shengqi then provided to overseas agents via email.
The aforementioned facts were confirmed by the following evidence:
(1) Testimony of witnesses Li Baozhi, Dai Xiaoqiang, Kong Guoxian, Gao Fengyi, and Zhang Fucai and the record of the defense arguments proved the fact that Liu Fenggang went to Anshan, Liaoning, Wenzhou in Dongtou County, Zhejiang, and the Xihu and Xiaoshan districts in Hangzhou, Zhejiang to gather information. Testimony of witnesses Shi Shucai, Ma Shulan, Dan Cuixiang, Liu Yuqin, Han Chunzhi, Cui Wenfu, and Qi Shuhua proved the fact that on August 17, 2003, Liu Fenggang participated in an illegal gathering in Dachengzi township in Miyun county, Beijing and was interrogated by the police.
(2) The contents stored in the digital camera and MP3 player that public security authorities confiscated from Liu Fenggang proved the fact that Liu Fenggang went to Wenzhou in Dongtou county, Zhejiang, and the Xihu and Xiaoshan districts in Hangzhou, Zhejiang to gather information.
(3) From two computers, a scanner, and a printer confiscated from Liu Fenggang and a Dongzhi 220CDS laptop computer traced to Xu Yonghai, public security authorities verified that three articles were stored on computers owned by Liu Fenggang: "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," "Reports from the Motherland," and "Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing." The article "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," was stored on the Dongzhi 220CDS laptop computer owned by Xu Yonghai. There is supporting evidence in the form of a partial draft manuscript of the article "Reports from the Motherland" that was confiscated from Liu Fenggang, which he had written.
(4) The 20th edition of "Life Quarterly" magazine published by a foreign publishing house collected in this case which had published the article "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," and the articles "Reports from the Motherland" and "Dense Clouds Interrogations" (referring to "Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing"), which the three defendants recognized in court, and which confirms without a doubt that they had supplied them.
(5) The National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets verification opinion proved that the three articles "What I Understand About the Facts of Liu Baozhi's 'Cult' Case in Anshan, Liaoning," "Reports from the Motherland," and "Interrogated by the Police for Preaching the Gospel in Mountain District Outside of Beijing" are intelligence.
(6) The household registrations submitted by the public security authorities confirmed the identities of the three defendants.
(7) The confessions of defendants Liu Fenggang, Zhang Shengqi, and Xu Yonghai in this case conform to one another and give identical synopses of the foregoing evidence.
The foregoing evidence has been confronted in court hearings without objection, and is confirmed by this Court.
This Court finds that the actions of defendants Liu Fenggang, Zhang Shengqi, and Xu Yonghai of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, organizations and agents abroad constitutes the commission of the crime of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad. The argument submitted by the defense counsels for the three defendants that it does not constitute the commission of a crime is inconsistent with the law. In accordance with the provisions of law, in order to resolve certain technical questions in this case we may entrust relevant agencies and personnel to carry out verifications. It is a technical question whether or not the circumstances surrounding the three defendants spying and illegally supplying for people abroad can be considered "intelligence." The National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets is the "state secrets" statutory verification agency, and in view of the fact that "secrets" and "intelligence" have equivalent natures there is nothing improper with a judicial agency entrusting a state secrets protection agency with carrying out verification. The verification produced by the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets is therefore legal and effective, and may serve as the basis for a judgment. The argument submitted by the defense counsels that the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets lacks verification qualifications and that the three articles are not intelligence is without basis, and cannot be accepted by this Court. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 111, 25(1), 56(1), 55(1), and 64 of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China," the judgment is as follows:
1. Defendant Liu Fenggang committed the crime of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and is sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of three years and three years deprivation of political rights. (The prison term is to be calculated starting on the day the judgment is executed, and each day in custody prior to the execution of the judgment shall count as one day of the prison term, that is from November 14, 2003 to February 4, 2007).
2. Defendant Xu Yonghai committed the crime of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and is sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of two years and two years deprivation of political rights. (The prison term is to be calculated starting on the day the judgment is executed, and each day in custody prior to the execution of the judgment shall count as one day of the prison term, that is from November 11, 2003 to January 30, 2006).
3. Defendant Zhang Shengqi committed the crime of spying for, and illegally providing state intelligence to, people abroad, and is sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of one year and one year deprivation of political rights. (The prison term is to be calculated starting on the day the judgment is executed, and each day in custody prior to the execution of the judgment shall count as one day of the prison term, that is from November 17, 2003 to February 7, 2005).
4. The equipment used in this case: one digital camera, one MP3 player, two computers, one printer, and one scanner that were confiscated and handed over to this Court for the trial are to be turned over to the national treasury.
If anyone does not accept this judgment, they may within 10 days after the second day after receiving this written judgment bring an appeal through this Court or directly to the High People's Court of Zhejiang. A written appeal should be submitted with one original and two copies of the appeal brief.
Chief Adjudicator: Zhang Yongchun
People's Assessor: Zhang Baowen
People's Assessor: Hua Xianglin
August 6, 2004
Clerk: Ma Jun
浙江省杭州市中级人民法院
刑事判决书
(2004)杭刑初字第39号
公诉机关浙江省杭州市人民检察院。
被告人刘凤钢，男，1959年[INTENTIONALLY DELETED IN THIS CASEBOOK]出生，汉族，北京市人，大专文化程度，无业，住北京市海淀区[INTENTIONALLY DELETED]。因涉嫌犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，于2003年10月13日被杭州市公安局萧山区分局监视居住，同年11月14日被刑事拘留，同年12月4日经杭州市萧山区人民检察院批准逮捕。2004年5月14日由本院决定被监视居住。
辩护人赵健，北京正海律师事务所律师。
被告人徐永海，男，1960年[INTENTIONALLY DELETED]出生，汉族，北京市人，大学文化程度，北京市福绥境（平安）医院医生，住北京市西城区[INTENTIONALLY DELETED]。因涉嫌犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，于2003年11月9日被杭州市公安局萧山区分局刑事拘留，同年12月4日经杭州市萧山区人民检察院批准逮捕。2004年5月14日由本院决定被监视居住。
辩护人钱列阳，北京中孚律师事务所律师。
被告人张胜其，男，1974年[INTENTIONALLY DELETED]出生，汉族，山东省曹县人，初中文化程度，农民，住山东省曹县王集乡张店村。因涉嫌为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，于2003年11月17日被杭州市公安局萧山区分局刑事拘留，同年12月4日经杭州市萧山区人民检察院批准逮捕。2004年5月14日由本院决定被监视居住。
辩护人徐平，北京中孚律师事务所律师。
浙江省杭州市人民检察院以杭检刑诉（2004）46号起诉书指控被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，于2004年3月日向本院提起公诉。本院依法组成合议庭，因涉及国家秘密，不公开开庭审理了本案。浙江省杭州市人民检察院指派代理检察员赵琳洁及杨甜出庭支持公诉，被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其及其辩护赵健、钱列阳、徐平到庭参加诉讼。现已审理终结。
浙江省杭州市人民检察院指控：2001年10月中旬，被告人徐永海出资人民币1000元给被告人刘凤钢作差旅费，由刘凤钢前往辽宁省鞍山市了解李宝芝被劳动教养的情况。事后，刘凤钢写了《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》一文，由徐永海提供给境外杂志《生命季刊》的发行机构。该刊物在第20期上全文刊登。
2003年7月25日，刘凤钢受境外人员指使，窜至浙江省温州市洞头县和杭州市萧山区、西湖区等地，收集当地有关人员所谓受逼迫的情况，回京后写成《来自祖国的报道》一文。同年8月5日，刘凤钢指使被告人张胜其通过电子邮件提供给境外人员。
2003年8月18日，刘凤钢将自己在8月17日至北京市密云县大城子镇参加非法活动被警察盘查的情况写成《在北京远郊的山区传福音被警察盘查的经过》一文，由张胜其打印成文，并通过电子邮件提供给境外人员。
为证实上述指控，公诉机关当庭宣读和出示了被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其的供述与辩解；证人李宝芝等人的证言；国家保密局出具的鉴定结论、浙江省安全厅出具的证明等；《生命季刊》杂志等书证；MP3播放嚣、数码相机等物证。认为被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其的行为已构成为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，应依法惩处。
被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其对公诉机关指控的事实均无异议，但均提出不构成犯罪。
三被告人的辩护人分别提出国家保密局没有鉴定资格，且本案涉及的三篇文章，不属情报，被告人的行为不构成犯罪。
经审理查明：2001年10月中旬，被告人徐永海得知辽宁省鞍山市妇女李宝芝因对被决定劳动教养不服而提起行政诉讼，及鞍山市中级人民法院即将二审公开开庭审理此案的消息后，指使被告人刘凤钢前往辽宁省鞍山市收集该案情况，并出资人民币1000元作差旅费。事后，刘凤钢将前往当地收集的情况写成《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》一文，由徐永海提供给境外杂志《生命季刊》的发行机构。该刊物在第20期上全文刊登。
2003年7月25日，刘凤钢受境外人员指使，窜至浙江省温州市洞头县和杭州市萧山区、西湖区等地，收集当地有关人员所谓受逼迫的情况，回京后写成《来自祖国的报道》一文。同年8月5日，刘凤钢指使被告人张胜其通过电子邮件提供给境外人员。
2003年8月17日，刘凤钢在北京市密云县大城子镇因参加非法活动受到警察盘查。次日，刘凤钢写了《在北京远郊的山区传福音被警察盘查的经过》一文，由张胜其通过电子邮件提供给境外人员。
案发后，公安机关从刘凤钢处扣押作案时使用的数码相机一架、MP3播放机一只、电脑二台、打印机一台、扫描仪一台。
认定上述事实的证据有：
（1）证人李宝芝、戴小强、孔国宪、高崇益、张福才证言及辩论笔录，证明刘凤钢到辽宁省鞍山市、浙江省温州市洞头县和杭州市萧山区、西湖区等地收集有关情况的事实。证人史书才、马淑兰、单翠香、刘玉琴、韩春芝、崔文福、齐淑花的证言，证明2003年8月17日，刘凤钢在北京市密云县大城子镇参加非法活动，受到公安人员盘查的事实。
（2）公安机关从刘凤钢处查扣的数码相机一架、MP3播放机一只，所记载的内容证明刘凤钢在浙江省温州市洞头县和杭州市萧山区、西湖区等地收集有关情况的事实。
（3）公安机关从刘凤钢处查扣两台电脑、扫描仪一台、打印机一台，从徐永海处查获东芝牌 220CDS型笔记本电脑一台，经鉴定，刘凤钢拥有的计算机内存有《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》、《来自祖国的报道》、《在北京远郊的山区传福音被警察盘查的经过》等三篇文章。徐永海拥有的东芝牌220CDS型笔记本电脑内存有《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》一文。从刘凤钢处查扣其所写的《来自祖国的报道》的部分底稿在案佐证。
（4）搜集在案的境外出版社出版的《生命季刊》第20期一本，该杂志刊登了《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》一文及公安机关从境外网站下载的《来自祖国的报道》、《密云盘查》（即为《在北京远郊的山区传福音被警察盘查的经过》）的文章，经三被告人当庭辩认，确系其提供无疑。
（5）国家保密局出具的鉴定意见，证明《我所了解的辽宁鞍山市刘宝芝"邪教"一案的事实与经过》、《来自祖国的报道》、《在北京远郊的山区传福音被警察盘查的经过》三篇文章系情报。
（6）公安机关出具的户籍证明证实三被告人的身分情况。
（7）被告人刘凤钢、张胜其、徐永海分别供述在案，所供能相印证，且与上述证据反映的情节一致。
上述证据经庭审质证无异，本院予以确认。
本院认为，被告人刘凤钢、徐永海、张胜其为境外组织、人员刺探、非法提供国家情报的行为，已构成为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪。公诉机关所控罪名成立。三被告人及辩护人提出不构成犯罪的辩解于法不符。根据法律规定，为了解决案件中某些专门性问题，可以委托有关部门和人员进行鉴定。本案三被告人为境外刺探、非法提供的有关情况是否为情报，属于专门性问题，而国家保密局是"国家秘密"的法定鉴定机关，鉴于"秘密"与"情报"有相同的性质，故司法机关委托保密部门进行鉴定并无不当，且国家保密局作出的鉴定合法有效，可以作为定案依据。辩护人提出国家保密局没有鉴定资格及三篇文章不属情报的辩护意见不能成立，本院不予采纳。据此，依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百一十一条、第二十五条第一款、第五十六条第一款、第五十五条第一款、第六十四条的规定，判决如下：
一、 被告人刘凤钢犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，判处有期徒刑三年，剥夺政治权利三年。（刑期从判决执行之日起计算。判决执行以前先行羁押的，羁押一日抵刑期一日，即自2003年11月14日起至2007年2月4日止）。
二、 被告人徐永海犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，判处有期徒刑二年，剥夺政治权利二年。（刑期从判决执行之日起计算。判决执行以前先行羁押的，羁押一日抵刑期一日，即自2003年11月9日起至2006年1月30日止）。
三、 被告人张胜其犯为境外刺探、非法提供国家情报罪，判处有期徒刑一年，剥夺政治权利一年。（刑期从判决执行之日起计算。判决执行以前先行羁押的，羁押一日抵刑期一日，即自2003年11月17日起至2005年2月7日止）。
四、 随案移送本院的作案工具数码相机一架、MP3播放机一只、电脑二台、打印机一台、扫描仪一台，予以没收，上缴国库。
如不服本判决，可在接到判决书的第二日起十日内，通过本院或者直接向浙江省高级人民法院提出上诉，书面上诉的，应当提交上诉状正本一份，副本二份。
审判长 张永纯
人民陪审员 张宝文
人民陪审员 华香琳
二○○四年八月六日
书记员 马骏
