Pages

Friday, July 9, 2021

The 7.09 Prosecutions: Wu Gan Criminal Judgment

 No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin

Criminal Judgment

(2016) Jin 02 Criminal First Instance No. 1461

****

Translator's Summary: The court found Wu Gan guilty on the grounds that he used "sensationalizing affrays online and offline and other methods to insult and belittle State agencies and their staff, in order to attack, confront, and oppose the State regime." His conviction was based on the charge that he colluded with Zhou Shifeng, Zhai Yanmin, and others associated with the Fengrui Law Firm to "strengthen an ideology that subverted state power."

****

The public prosecution agency was the Tianjin People's Procuratorate Second Division.

Defendant Wu Gan, male, Han ethnicity, born [REDACTED IN ORIGINAL] at [REDACTED IN ORIGINAL], Citizen Identification No. [REDACTED IN ORIGINAL], administrative staffer at the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm, [APPROXIMATELY 40 CHARACTERS REDACTED IN ORIGINAL] On May 27, 2015 was taken into criminal detention on suspicion of committing the crimes of disturbing the peace and defamation, and was arrested on July 3 of the same year on suspicion of committing the crimes of inciting subversion of state power and defamation. He is currently being held in detention at the Tianjin No. 2 Detention Center.

Defense counsel Ge Yongxi is a lawyer at the Guangdong Anguo Law Firm.

Defense counsel Yan Xin is a lawyer at the Beijing Laishuo Law Firm.

In the Jin Procuratorate No. 2 Division Public Prosecution Criminal Indictment (2016) No. 10001 indictment the Tianjin People's Procuratorate Second Division charged defendant Wu Gan with committing the crime of subversion of state power, and on December 23, 2016 filed a public prosecution with this Court. On December 30 of the same year, in accordance with the jurisdiction decision of the High People's Court this Court opened and accepted the case, and formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law. Pre-trial conferences were held from August 7 and 8, 2017, and on August 14 conducted a trial in closed court in accordance with the law. The Tianjin People's Procuratorate Second Division assigned Procurator Gong Ning, Acting Procurators Sheng Guowen and Cao Jiyuan to appear in court in support of the public prosecution, and defendant Wu Gan and his defense counsels Ge Yongxi and Yan Xin appeared in court to participate in the proceedings. The trial has now concluded.

The Tianjin People's Procuratorate Second Division charged:

Defendant Wu Gan had been influenced by the infiltration of anti-China forces over a long period of time, and he gradually developed the idea of overthrowing the country's current political and judicial systems. Since 2010, over a long period of time Wu Gan used the Internet to publish statements that subverted state power, inciting some people who did not know the truth to confront and oppose the State regime. He posted articles on the Internet that attacked organs of the State regime such as "The Classic on Butchering Pigs," "The Classic on Drinking Tea," and "The Classic on Petitioning Against Forced Demolitions and Land Appropriations." He accepted interviews with foreign media, published audio lectures on the Internet, advocated the ideology of "pushing against the wall," and attacked the socialist system. He used various means to carry out criminal activities to subvert state power, such as illegally gathering people in public venues to create a disturbance.

In October 2014, Wu Gan joined the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm headed by Zhou Shifeng (who has already been sentenced for using a law firm as a platform to engage in subversion of state power). He colluded with Zhou Shifeng, Zhai Yanmin (already sentenced for illegally organizing petitioners to commit affrays over a long period time to engage in subversion of state power), Li Heping (utilizing funds of a foreign non-governmental organization to engage in subversion of state power, case being handled separately) and others to further strengthen an ideology that subverted state power, specifically sensationalize hot-button cases and incidents, and carry out a series of criminal activities to subvert state power and overthrow the socialist order, severely jeopardizing national security and social stability. The specific facts are as follows:

1. In April 2010, the People's Court of Mawei , Fuzhou, tried a case of false accusation in accordance with the law. While the case was being tried, defendant Wu Gan engaged in malicious instigation on the Internet, inciting others to come to the court to gather to affray and confront and oppose the country's judiciary. On the day of the trial, Wu Gan, in collusion with others, used means such as hanging banners, shouting slogans, and uploading live videos to the Internet in front of the court, to seriously affect the people's court trying the case in accordance with the law, smear the image of judiciary, and cause a pernicious political influence at home and abroad.

2. In April 2012, defendant Wu Gan intervened in a demolition compensation dispute in Jin'an District, Fuzhou, Fujian. From April to August of the same year, Wu Gan organized a number of people to stretch banners and pitch tents in front of the Fuzhou Urban and Rural Construction Commission, and posted slogans at a house to be demolished, and insulted and abused the Jin'an District chief on the Internet, which seriously damaged the image of the government and state officials, and provoked some people who did not know the truth to confront and oppose the government.

3. In September 2012, the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing, Fujian, opened a case in accordance with the law to investigate a case of embezzlement. During the investigation of the case, defendant Wu Gan came to the front gate of the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing to raise banners and commit affrays, and on the Internet he repeatedly insulted and abused the chief of the public security bureau and the police officers who handled the case, and smeared a martyr of the bureau who had sacrificed himself for the community as a "protector of organized crime," seriously damaging the image of the public security agency and the people's police, and provoking hatred towards the State regime of some people who did not know the truth.

4. On March 22, 2014, the Public Security Bureau of the Jiansanjiang Agricultural Reclamation Area in Heilongjiang administratively detained in accordance with the law relevant individuals who disturbed social order. Defendant Wu Gan in collusion with others organized a "Jiansanjiang Citizens' Solidarity Rescue Group", and posted a "Fundraising Call for the Citizens' Solidarity Rescue Group" on the Internet, and acted as the fundraising contact and supervisory reviewer, encouraging others to come to Jiansanjiang to illegally gather to create a disturbance. Subsequently, some lawyers and petitioners illegally gathered in front of the Public Security Bureau of Sanjiang Agricultural Reclamation Area and the Qixing Detention Center, sitting in demonstrations, shouting slogans, hanging banners, and engaging in malicious instigation on the Internet, denigrating and attacking organs of the State regime. Wu Gan continuously published police personal information on the Internet, called for online "doxxing,"2 and issued "wanted reward posters," insulted and abused the police, and incited people to confront and oppose the State regime, causing a pernicious political influence at home and abroad.

5. In May 2014, the Intermediate People's Court of Huaihua, Hunan tried a case in accordance with the law of gathering people to disrupt social order. During the trial of the case, defendant Wu Gan, together with Li Heping and others, went to Mayang County, Huaihua to sensationalize the case. From May 20 to 21 of the same year, Wu Gan successively held up a placard in front of the Mayang County Party Committee and County Government, and submitted a complaint letter to the People's Procuratorate of Huaihua, smearing and defaming the Mayang County Party Secretary. Afterwards, he continued to maliciously sensationalize matters online, provoking some people who did not know the truth to become dissatisfied with the socialist system with Chinese characteristics.

6. In May 2014, the Public Security Bureau in Zhengzhou, Henan Province opened a case for investigation in accordance with the law into relevant individuals who disturbed the order of public places. Defendant Wu Gan colluded with Zhai Yanmin and others to plan to sensationalize the case, and organized publishing "calls" for fundraising advocacy on the Internet many times. In July of the same year, some lawyers and petitioners illegally gathered in front of the Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center, sat in on hunger strikes, hung banners, shouted slogans, unreasonably demanded the release of detainees, and engaged in malicious instigation on the Internet, denigrating and attacking organs of the State regime. During that time, Wu Gan issued "Citations" and "Wanted Posters" on the Internet, and performed "Performance Art" in front of the detention center that insulted and denigrated the public security bureau chief, and encouraged some people who did not know the truth to hate organs of the State regime, causing a pernicious political influence at home and abroad.

7. In September 2014, the Justice Bureau of Changping District, Beijing held a hearing on an administrative penalty case. Defendant Wu Gan encouraged others on the Internet to gather at the hearing site illegally, hold up slogans at scene that denigrated the Justice Bureau and the Bar Association, verbally abuse the civil police who were on duty at the time, and in collusion with others shout slogans and block the doors in affrays, causing serious chaos on the scene. After learning that the relevant individuals had been administratively detained by the public security agency, Wu Gan posted a large number of micro-blogs with pictures insulting public security civil police on the Internet to continue malicious sensationalizing, denigrating, and attacking organs of the State regime.

8. In December 2014, the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm was acting as representatives in a civil action, and the case had been settled by court through mediation. Defendant Wu Gan took instructions from Zhou Shifeng and went to Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan to sensationalize the case with Xie Yuandong (case being handled separately). From January 7 to 12, 2015, Wu Gan posted big-character posters at the Prefecture  People's Government, Prefecture People's Procuratorate, Intermediate People's Court, and other places, and engaged in affrays inside and outside the court by various means such as driving by in cars with big character posters pasted on them, attacking the judiciary, smearing the judicial system, and using the Internet to engage in malicious instigation, attempting to provoke some people who did not know the truth to hate the judicial system of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

9. On December 3, 2013, an intentional injury case occurred in Huqiu District, Suzhou, Jiangsu, which caused two deaths due to a demolition. In January 2014, defendant Wu Gan participated in the "Suzhou Urbanization and Demolition Seminar" in response to the case in Beijing, and published statements that denigrated and attacked China's national system, and incited hatred of the socialist system. From January to February 2015, Wu Gan learned that that case and related cases were about to be heard in court, and actively organized fundraising on the Internet, maliciously sensationalized, and incited some people who did not know the truth to come to Suzhou to illegally gather to create a disturbance, and confront and oppose the government.

10. In March 2015, the People's Court of Mancheng District, Baoding, Hebei was trying an extortion case in accordance with the law in which the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm was acting as representatives. While the case was being tried, defendant Wu Gan took instructions from Zhou Shifeng and fabricated rumors such as "Leaders of the Baoding Municipal Party Committee Political and Legal Commission committed an injustice for the sake of a vanity project," engaged in malicious sensationalizing on the Internet, and provoked some people who did not know the truth to become dissatisfied with the judicial system of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

11. On May 2, 2015, an individual who was assaulting a police officer was shot dead on the spot by the police on duty in the waiting room of a railway station in Qing'an County, Heilongjiang. After the incident, defendant Wu Gan published a large number of micro-blog posts on the Internet distorting facts, fabricating rumors that the individual assaulting the police was a petitioner, that the police who shot him were there to intercept petitioners, and inciting others to gather illegally in Qing'an County to sensationalize the matter. Later, he spread false statements by publishing the "Qing'an Incident Investigation Report" on the Internet to encourage the masses who did not know the truth to confront and oppose organs of State power.

12. In May 2015, the High People's Court of Jiangxi tried a criminal complaint case in accordance with the law. From May 18 to 19 of the same year, defendant Wu Gan engaged in malicious instigation on the Internet, and insulted the president of the court in front of the court, set up a "mourning hall" to discredit the image of the judiciary, and denigrated, and attacked the State's judicial system.

On May 27, 2015, defendant Wu Gan was apprehended and brought to justice.

With respect to the aforementioned charges, the public prosecution agency read and produced in court criminal judgments, administrative punishment decisions and other documentary evidence, testimony of Zhai Yanmin, Xie Yuandong, and other witnesses, as well as other evidence including search, investigation, and identification records, audio-visual materials, electronic data, and defendant Wu Gan's statement. It believes that Wu Gan organized, planned, and carried out subversion of state power and the overthrow of the socialist order, and his actions constitute the commission of an offense under the provisions of Article 105(1) of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China." The criminal facts are clear and the evidence is reliable and copious, and he should bear criminal liability for committing the crime of subversion of state power. In accordance with the provisions of Article 172 of the "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," it requests this Court pass sentence in accordance with the law.

Defendant Wu Gan admitted to having acted in the manner set forth in facts charged by public prosecution agency, but his defense counsel raised the following justifications and defense opinions with respected to the public prosecution agency's charges:

1. While Wu Gan was being held in custody in Beijing he was tortured to extract a confession and was interrogated until he was exhausted. The detention location recorded in some of the interrogation transcripts does not conform to the actual detention location. Some interrogating personnel did not have investigation authority and the interrogation transcripts that they participated in the production of are not valid. Therefore, they apply to have all statements of Wu Gan from July 5, 2015 to January 8, 2016 excluded.

2. None of the electronic data in this case was collected by an investigation agency, and there is no paperwork or other records showing the investigating agency entrusted data collection to a third party. There are no records of the collection process, and the means and methods of electronic data collection do not comply with laws and regulations. They lack legality and cannot be used as evidence in this case. The content of some of the online articles and audio produced by the public prosecution agency did not originate with Wu Gan, and it therefore cannot be determined that they were posted by Wu Gan himself. Some of the witnesses in this case have a vested interest in Wu Gan, and their testimony is mutually contradictory and replete with subjective assumptions, and are therefore not probative. Zhai Yanmin, Zhou Shifeng and other witnesses were tortured to extract confessions, and relevant witness testimony cannot serve as a basis for establishing an offense in this case.

3. The totality of evidence in this case is unable to prove that Wu Gan either objectively possessed the criminal intent to subvert state power, or subjectively carried out criminal acts to subvert state power. There were reasons why Wu Gan participated in those 12 incidents, and the content that was posted online was all factual. In addition, in the specific cases where Wu Gan was a participant, some participants were either not criminally punished or were convicted of other offenses, so there is no legal basis for Wu Gan to be charged with the crime of subversion of state power. The statements made in the "Three Great Classics" that Wu Gan posted online, his getting people to bear witness at events, his sensationalizing and other behaviors, these are all the actions of a citizen legitimately exercising their rights granted by the Constitution. They were not directed at the State regime, and did not result in causing the State regime to be subverted. Therefore, Wu Gan's actions do not constitute the crime of subversion of state power.

It was ascertained at trial that:

Because he was dissatisfied with the country's current political system, defendant Wu Gan gradually developed the idea of subverting state power. Thereafter, over an extended period of time Wu Gan used information networks to spread a large number of statements that attacked the State regime and the national system established by the Constitution, and that advocated the use of the subversive "push against the wall" ideology. In collusion with certain illegal religious activists, professional petitioners, a small number of lawyers and other individuals who had the idea of subverting of state power, he created disturbances with illegal assemblies in public venues under the guise of "rights defense" and performing "performance art." He sensationalized hot-button incidents by insulting third parties, spreading false information on information networks. He committed series of criminal acts that subverted stated power and overthrew the socialist order by smearing organs of the State and attacking the national system established by the Constitution. This severely jeopardized national security and social stability. The specific facts are as follows:

I. Utilizing Information Networks to Attack the State Regime and the Socialist System

Since 2010, defendant Wu Gan used Twitter, Weibo, WeChat and other online social media tools to continuously publish a large number of posts and audio lectures attacking the State regime and the socialist system. During that time, Wu Gan wrote articles such as the "Three Great Classics," and accepted interviews with foreign media. He smeared the national political system, and advocated the use of the subversive "push against the wall" ideology, inciting people to confront and oppose the State regime.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. The electronic data optical disc with the "Letter of Reply Regarding the 'Wu Gan Disturbing the Peace' Case," and the "Letter of Reply Regarding the 'Wu Gan Defamation' Case" produced by the Beijing Weimeng Chuangke Network Technology Co., Ltd.3 proved: The circumstances of the Wu Gan-related Sina Weibo account registration information, Weibo content and number of readings, reposts, and comments for the accounts with the pseudonyms "Pig Killer" (UID: 2782156390 ), "Happy Love Sunshine Charity" (UID: 2345898410 ), "Super Vulgar tufu-eoE" (UID: 3525846081),  and "Super Vulgar Tufu" (UID: 3735687154) that the public security agency retrieved from that company.

2.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Electronic Investigation (2015) No. 10 electronic data investigation record proved: After conducting an examination of the Sina Weibo data related to Wu Gan, it was found that there were multiple posts published from June 2012 to January 2015. Among them, the part of the post posted by the account nicknamed "Super Vulgar tufu_eoE" is: " . . .Everyone can push against the wall in their own way . . ." "When facing totalitarianism, the only thing we can do is push the wall and criticize the market . . ."

3.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen Siming Precinct's Xia Publicsi (Lianqian) Retrieval Evidence (2015) No. 0202 evidence retrieval notice and the explanation, Weibo registration data, and Weibo post content produced by the Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. proved: The account and registration information and many of the posts for shoujil354373175 (Pseudonym: Doctor Butcher), sunshinengo (Pseudonym: Butchers Love to Kill Pigs) and other Wu Gan-related Tencent Weibo accounts retrieved by the public security agency from that company, including the posts for the account with the pseudonym "Butchers Love to Kill Pigs" had content such as: "The political stance and pushing-the-wall attitude must be clear. Although there are people who may seem to share these ideals,  they actually play a role in furthering abuses. This is why I have a strong aversion to randomly crowing about unity."

4. The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen Siming Precinct's Xia Publicsi (Lianqian) Retrieval Evidence (2015) No. 00019 evidence retrieval notice and the explanation, evidence retrieval lists, and electronic data optical discs proved: The public security agency retrieved all of Wu Gan's WeChat "Moments" data and microblog content and comments for account 2302974886 from Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd.

5. The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Electronic Investigation (2015) No. 11 electronic data investigation record proved: An examination conducted on Wu Gan's WeChat "Moments" data in the WeChat "Moments" data of the account No. wxid_ jah3jvte134u12 (Pseudonym: "The Super Vulgar Butcher is Active") discovered many posts, and a portion of the content was: "Pushing against the wall is not a matter of a day or two. Not only do we have to contend with them with a happy and healthy attitude, but we must also keep our bodies in good shape so that we may outlive them, and we must wait for the day when we bury them with our own hands."

6. The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance (2015) No. 3 remote crime scene investigation record proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan) found that many posts were published from October 2011 to October 2014, and a portion of the content was: "This regime is disliked everywhere in the world. Can there be anything of good quality under this regime?"

Based on Wu Gan's confirmation, the aforementioned content was posted by him on the Internet.

7.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance  (2014) No. 4 remote crime scene investigation record proved: Based on a crime scene investigation examination, a program titled "Chinese Mainland Officials' and Civilians' Response to Hong Kong [Occupy Central]" was found on the website of a foreign radio station.4 The web page stated that the broadcast time of the program was: 2014-10-09 00: 35: 00, and that the content was a visit with the mainland Internet activist [Wu Gan the Butcher]. Part of the audio content was the declaration "Every day that the mainland centralizes power, it will not bring peace and civilization to the world, but will only bring barbarity, pollution, and disaster."

The aforementioned audio transcription materials were confirmed by Wu Gan as the contents he spoke when accepting an interview.

8.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen Siming Precinct's Xia Publicsi (Lianqian) Retrieval Evidence (2015) No. 00018 evidence retrieval notice, evidence retrieval lists, and the "Electronic Data Examination Explanation of the Private Living Room Lecture 'The Current Situation of Human Rights and Social Issues in China' Audio Found on Lizhi FM" proved: The circumstances of the number of audio files, listens, reposts, and comments for the private living room lecture "The Current Situation of Human Rights and Social Issues in China (Speaker: Butcher, Host: Three-Legged Cat)" retrieved on April 13, 2015 from Guangzhou Lizhi Network Technology Co., Ltd. that was posted by Sissi Vegetable. Part of that audio content was: "In the final analysis, all the problems are the problems of the system and the political system. . . So we will not make any well-intended suggestions that would be beneficial to extending their life span. Instead, we should encourage them to get worse: build walls and mix water in with the sand. When the ship is going down you just take out an extra chip or two. . . You absolutely cannot engage in civic activities and push against the wall without funds. . . So every time I take on a case I raise money first. You can do it if you have money.

The aforementioned audio transcription materials were confirmed by Wu Gan as the contents of his lecture.

9. The Public Security Bureau of Fujian Physical Evidence Forensic Center's Min Police Inspection (2015) No. 389 analysis report and the "Explanation of Electronic Data Inspection of the audio lecture in the WeChat Group 'The Great Undertaking for Democracy Red Envelopes' Collected from Wu Gan's iPhone4" produced by the Public Security Bureau of Xiamen Siming Precinct proved: The WeChat account No. wxid_minhchrrq5qz22 (Tu the Sixth) found on Wu Gan's iPhone 4 mobile phone used the sound broadcast feature on April 14, 2015 to launch a lecture in the WeChat Group "773207982@chatroom-The Great Undertaking for Democracy Red Envelopes." Part of that content was: "If you have the awareness of pushing against the wall, you can use the Internet to spread the truth and make more like-minded friends."

10.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance (2015) No. 2 remote crime scene investigation record proved: The crime scene investigation found that Wu Gan used his Twitter account The Super Vulgar Butcher (@tufuwugan) several times to publish articles and information about the content of "Classics", and uploaded the "Classics" information to the Google Plus social media platform, which was produced by Wu Gan. "Classics" was reprinted and reported by foreign media, websites, and Internet users' blogs.

Among these, part of the content that Wu Gan posted on his Twitter account was: "The Butcher's Three Classics: 1: The Classic on Butchering Pigs for Petitioners. 2: The Classic on Drinking Tea. 3: The Classic on Petitioning Against Forced Demolitions and Land Appropriations. They have all been launched. After a period with some time on my hands I wrote some classics on the torments borne by citizens of an abnormal country. How to popularize overcoming fear, how to deal with gangsters, how to increase their costs, and how to work together to send the devil off to die!"


Wu Gan uploaded "One of The Super Vulgar Butcher (Wu Gan) Classics: The Classic on Butchering Pigs for Petitioners" to the social platform Google. Part of the content of that "Classic" was: "In our country, there is no justice in the judiciary, the Political and Legal Committee and the Disciplinary Inspection Commission hide the truth from the masses. . . The petition system is a tool used by the State to deceive the people and provide a check against local government. . . The root of judicial injustice lies in this system. If this system is not changed, the law is just a fig leaf. . . Under this system, one must not put one's faith in the law, under this evil system good people turn bad. . .  It is recommended to take the most primitive means to raise appeals. . . Targeting specific individuals is the most effective way; various forms of appeals and various behaviors can be adopted online and offline. Performance art, satire, filing reports, making accusations, etc. . ."

Wu Gan uploaded "The Super Vulgar Butcher (Wu Gan) Classics II: The Classic on Drinking Tea" to the Google Plus social media platform. Part of the content of that "Classic" was: "In a country without democracy and freedom, drinking tea is the only way to become a true citizen. Drinking tea usually refers to being interviewed by the police and national security agents because of your statements or your civic actions. . . If everyone treats drinking tea as a kind of honor, then this society will see progress."

atAspirin posted "The Super Vulgar Butcher's 'Classic on Butchering Pigs'." Part of the content of that "Classic" was: "China's laws serve gangsters and powerful people; when an individual makes an appeal . . . it is best to target the head of the department. . . There are many ways, such as online exposés, expose their scars, dig into the scandals of their family members and the people who surround them. Enumerate the crimes they committed in office, and hang the evil deeds they committed in prior roles around their necks."

"The Past is not as Good as Smoke" reposted "The Classic on Petitioning Against Forced Demolitions and Land Appropriations." Part of the content of that "Classic" was: "At present, in a State where there is no rule of law, this kind of manual can only be used as a reference. . . The government protects the strong from violence, and will not protect the interests and personal safety of those whose homes are being demolished and whose land is being taken. . . When homes are being demolished and land is being taken the law is nothing more than trinkets and shit. The police, the procuratorate, the judiciary – they are essentially worthless.

The aforementioned content was confirmed by Wu Gan as having been written and posted by him on the Internet.

11. The Public Security Bureau of Fujian Physical Evidence Forensic Center's Min Police Inspection (2015) No. 389 analysis report proved: The WeChat account wxid_minhchrrq5qz22 (Butcher No. 6) found on Wu Gan's iPhone4 posted information related to the "Classics" in group chats and Moments to encourage others to use the methods in the "Classics" to "push against the wall".

12. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: He believes that the root of social contradictions lies in the current political and judicial systems. His ideal state is to awaken "citizens" as an important force in the future "social transformation" through intervention in a series of cases and events, so as to enable this group of people to continue to grow stronger. In this way, the current government will be pushed into make a "peaceful transformation" by means of "street complaints." The "lawyers circle," "petitioners circle," "democracy movement circle," and "Internet user circle" who are actively following these cases all have this kind of common understanding. Therefore, it is only after a certain incident occurs that the various circles unite and intervene in the matter. This is also a manifestation of pushing back. His Twitter screen name is "Super Vulgar Butcher," account number: Stufuwugan; his Sina screen name is "Happy Love Sunshine Charity;" his G+ account is "Wu Gan (Butcher);" his WeChat accounts include "cjdstf;" his Sina Weibo and Tencent Weibo accounts are "Super Vulgar Butcher," "Bald Pig Killer," "A Guy Who Loves Killing Pigs," and so on. It was probably in the first half of 2011 that he compiled the "Pig Killing Classics", which was divided into two parts: "The Classic on Butchering Pigs for Rights Defense" and "The Classic on Butchering Pigs for Petitioners." In 2012, he wrote about his experience in dealing with the police as "The Classic on Drinking Tea," which was written after those others. He opposes the existing system and has never tried to conceal his ideology.

II. Sensationalizing the Defamation Cases of Fan Yanqiong et. al.

In April 2010, Fan Yanqiong et. al. were sentenced and punished in accordance with the law by the People's Court of Mawei, Fuzhou, Fujian (hereinafter referred to as the Mawei Court) for defaming others on the Internet. During the trial of the case, defendant Wu Gan continuously posted defamatory content on his Twitter account saying that the Fuzhou judicial system was in league with organized crime, and he smeared the judiciary and incited others to travel to the court to gather in affrays. On April 16th of the same year, the case was heard in court. Wu Gan joined with many others to make trouble in front of the Mawei Court by shouting slogans and unfurling banners, and uploaded footage from the scene to the Internet to sensationalize the matter, inciting people who did not know the truth to become dissatisfied with the national judicial system.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. Testimony of witness Wang Baoyong (civil police at the Public Security Bureau of Mawei, Fuzhou and identification records proved: Twice in 2010, he participated in actions to maintain order at the scene of court hearings in the defamation case of Fan Yanqiong et. al.. In April, more than one hundred people came and the scene was bigger than the previous one. Many people hung signs  on their chests with the faces of the "Three Netizens," tied yellow ribbons on their bodies, held up banners, and shouted slogans. Among them was a bald, fat person who was very active at the scene, taking the lead in shouting slogans, constantly taking pictures and videos, and even taking out a computer and working on it from time to time. That person was identified as Wu Gan.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by the testimony and identification transcripts of witness Chen Qixing, a civil police at the Luoxing Precint of the Public Security Bureau of Mawei, Fuzhou, and security guards Zheng Zhiyong and Qiu Xigui.

2. Testimony of witness Sun Jinghai and identification records proved: On the day of the hearing for the defamation case of Fan Yanqiong et. al., he was at the scene and saw a lot of people gathered at the entrance of the Mawei Court. Several organizers took the lead in shouting slogans, holding banners, and singing at the scene. Wu Gan was identified as one of the organizers.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by identification records and the testimony of  Liu Weitao who was at the scene.

3. Testimony of witness Wu Ruifeng proved: He was the presiding judge in the defamation case of Fan Yanqiong et. al. During the trial on April 16, 2010, he could clearly hear a gathering of people outside the court chanting slogans. Shortly after the hearing, he received a "Certificate of Merit" from Wu Gan that denigrated the image of the Mawei Court.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by the "Certificate of Award" documentary evidence.

4. The hearing announcement provided by the Mawei Court, the (2009) Ma Criminal First No. 154 criminal judgment and the Intermediate People's Court of Fuzhou's (2010) Rong Criminal Final No. 502 criminal ruling proved: The time of the hearing of the Fan Yanqiong, You Jingyou, and Wu Huaying defamation case and the circumstaces of the sentencing of those three people.

5. The "Explanation of the Handling of the '6.27' Case Hearing" produced by the Public Security Bureau of Mawei, Fuzhou proved: At 8:30 am on April 16, 2010, more than 80 people gathered at the gate of the Mawei Court claiming "Solidarity with Fan Yanqiong, You Jingyou, and Wu Huaying." The main organizer was Wu Gan. His actions triggered more than 200 people to loiter outside the Mawei Court, order was disturbed, and the influence was relatively large.

6. The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance (2014) No. 3 remote crime scene investigation record proved: After an investigation of the crime scene, seven videos were found showing Wu Gan and others engaged in affrays at the Mawei Court.

7.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance (2015) No. 1 remote crime scene investigation record proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Twitter data "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan) retrieved Wu Gan's tweets and links encouraging others to go to Fuzhou to sensationalize the defamation case of Fan Yanqiong et. al. since the beginning of February 2010, as well as tweets and links smearing the Fuzhou judicial system as being in league with organized crime.

8. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: In February 2010, he began to intervene in the defamation case of Fan Yanqiong et. al., and went to Fuzhou in solidarity. On April 16, the case was heard. He and the people present used slogans, banners and other means to show solidarity, and did live Internet broadcasts from the scene. Some people at the scene wrapped a yellow ribbon on their arms and played dirges to satirize the local judiciary.

III. Sensationalizing the Jin'an, Fuzhou Demolition Compensation Incident

In April 2012, defendant Wu Gan intervened in a demolition compensation incident in Jin'an District, Fuzhou, Fujian. From April to September of the same year, Wu Gan posted banners at the houses to be demolished and used performance art to insult Zheng Doe, the then Chief of Jin'an District. Later, he organized people to stretch out banners and set up tents in front of the Fuzhou Urban and Rural Construction Committee. At the same time, Wu Gan uploaded photos of the aforementioned  "performance art" to the Internet and published posts to smearing the image of organs of the State and their staff, and incited people who did not know the truth to confront and oppose the State regime.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. Testimony of witness He Xi (on staff at the People's Government of Jin'an District) and identification records proved: On August 26, 2012, a person named "Pig Killer" posted four pictures on Sina Weibo, three of which showed the face of Jin'an District Chief Zheng Doe on a nude female plastic model. Insulting text was written on the model's body. Two men were pictured standing next to the model. One of them was the Weibo blogger (Wu Gan). In three pictures can be seen the wall of a private house pasted with paper that said: "Citizens' Private Property Protection Fuzhou Observation Point (The Super Vulgar Butcher Studio)." There was also a picture with two men pulling a banner with the words "Strongly protesting against the administrative inaction of the Fuzhou Urban and Rural Construction Committee, ignoring the safety of people's lives and property, and prostituting themselves to the illegal and rogue construction enterprises." He went to the police precinct to file a complaint.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by testimony of witness Zheng Doe and the Public Security Bureau of Fuzhou Jin'an Precinct's case acceptance registration forms and other evidence.

2. Testimony of witness Chen Minghong (on staff at the Ziyang Economic Cooperative, Wangzhuang Street, Jin'an District) proved: In Jin'an District, a family had been a "holdout home"5 for a long time in order to obtain more compensation. Wu Gan set up a "citizen's private property protection point" outside the house, and placed a nude plastic female model in front of the gate. The face of the Jin'an District Chief was attached to the model's head to take pictures, and the family was organized to set up a tent and hold a sit-in at the entrance of the Fuzhou Construction Committee. The actions of Wu Gan and others attracted many crowds of onlookers.

The aforementioned witness testimony was occasionally corroborated by the testimony of witness Li Rongquan, secretary of the Ziyang Economic Cooperative in Wangzhuang Street, Jin'an District.

3. Testimony of witness Zeng Yong (on staff at the Fuzhou Diyuan Housing Acquisition and Construction Office) and identification records proved: In April 2010, the expropriation of Datong and surrounding land in Jin'an District began. Wu Gan put the face of the Jin'an District Chief on the head of a nude plastic model to insult, and organized a family and some Internet users within the expropriation area in Fuzhou to hold a sit-in at the door of the Municipal Construction Committee, and take pictures and post them on the Internet.

4. The Fuzhou Real Estate Administration Housing Demolition Announcement, Housing Demolition Permit, and "Report on the Overdue Resettlement of Homes in Our City" provided by the Fuzhou Housing Security and Real Estate Administration proved: On April 15, 2010, the Fuzhou Municipal Real Estate Administration approved the implementation of the demolition of the houses in the Crown City Chase Co., Ltd. and surrounding plots, and the demolition period was from April 15, 2010 to April 30, 2011. The period for demolition was subsequently exceeded.

5. The situation explanatory materials issued by the People's Government Office of Jin'an District, Fuzhou proved: In April 2012, Wu Gan set up a "Citizens' Property Rights Protection Fuzhou Observation Point" at the site where houses were to be demolished, performing various "performance art",including "taking photos with the female district chief nude model" and "erecting a tent by the construction committee." The aforementioned actions affected the image of the district government.

6. The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Electronic Inspection (2015) No. 1 electronic data investigation record proved: An examination of the Sina Weibo data related to Wu Gan, 13 historical Weibo posts relating to the Jin'an District demolition compensation incident were found in the Weibo account with the pseudonym "Pig Killer" (UID: 2782156390). Among these, part of the content released on September 6, 2012 was: "Tents, memorial tablets, and props on the street (At that time, the female district chief will be placed on the roof of a car to be exhibited in streets all over Fuzhou to let everyone see how they not only do not serve the people, but also run roughshod over the people). . . ."

Based on Wu Gan's confirmation, the aforementioned content was posted by him on the Internet.

7.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance (2015) No. 1 remote crime scene investigation record proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan) collected content from it including tweets and links posted by Wu Gan that insulted the then chief of Jin'an District and declared that "the government is ignoring the safety of people's lives and property, and prostituting themselves to the illegal and rogue construction enterprises."

Based on Wu Gan's confirmation, the relevant content was written and posted by him on the Internet.

8. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: In 2012, he adopted the following methods to help a household in Jin'an District that was to be demolished "defend their rights": Set up a tent at the gate of the Municipal Construction Committee and posted promotional slogans; fixed the face of the Jin'an District chief on the head of a nude plastic model with a slogan and took photos with it and upload those photos to Twitter, Weibo, and WeChat. Before performing the aforementioned "performance art," he asked someone to write a large poster with the content: "Citizens' Private Property Rights Protection Fuzhou Observation Point" and posted it in person on the exterior wall of the house to be demolished.

IV. Sensationalizing the Xu Xiaoshun6 Professional Embezzlement Case

In September 2012, Xu Xiaoshun was taken into criminal detention by the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing, Fuzhou on suspicion of committing the crime of professional embezzlement. During the investigation of the case, defendant Wu Gan raised a placard in front of the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing and engaged in affrays. From December 2012 to April 2013, Wu Gan continuously published posts on his Twitter and Sina Weibo accounts insulting and abusing the then Public Security Bureau of Fuqing Director Lin Doe, and defaming the revolutionary martyr Lin Wanlin who had sacrificed themselves for the community as a "protector of organized crime," seriously damaging the image of the public security agency and the people's police, and provoking hatred towards the State regime of some people who did not know the truth.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. The Decision to Open a Case, detention warrant, arrest warrant, decision on bail pending trial, etc. provided by the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing Economic Crime Investigation Brigade proved: The circumstances in which the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing opened a case to investigate Xu Xiaoshun on suspicion of professional embezzlement and adopted coercive measures.

2. Testimony of witness Xue Aizhong (then Deputy Chief of the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing Economic Crime Investigation Brigade) proved: At the time Xu Xiaoshun was taken into criminal detention, Wu Gan went to the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing and raised a placard and made a lot of noise, demanding the release of Xu Xiaoshun, claiming that the police handling the case were on the take. Later, Wu Gan also insulted and threatened Director Lin Doe on the Internet. In April 2013, Wu Gan said on the Internet that the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing police and Hero Second Class Lin Wanlin were members of a criminal gang, smearing the image of the public security agency and the civil police.

3. Testimony of witness Lin Doe proved: During his tenure as the director of the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing, Wu Gan published a large number of posts on the Internet, insulting and abusing him, and calling Lin Wanlin a "protector of organized crime."

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by the testimony of witnesses She Bin and Lin Yan, police officers at the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing.

4. Testimony of witness Wu Wei (civil police at the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing) proved: He handled the Xu Xiaoshun suspected professional embezzlement case. In March 2013, a colleague called and said that Wu Gan was holding a sign in front of the public security bureau, with words insulting him written on the sign.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by the testimony of witness Wei Hui, a police officer at the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing.

5. Testimony of witness Huang Jianrong (civil police at the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing) proved: He was previously a colleague of Lin Wanlin. Lin Wanlin was shot and died heroically during the investigation of a case, and was later ratified as a Hero Second Class by the Ministry of Public Security.

6. The "Report on the Ratification of Comrade Lin Wanlin as a Revolutionary Martyr," the Civil Affairs Bureau of Fuqing's "Investigation Report on the Ratification of Comrade Lin Wanlin as a Revolutionary Martyr," and the Ministry of Public Security's "Order Posthumously Awarding the Title of Model Hero Second Class of the National Public Security System to Comrade Lin Wanlin" provided by the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing proved: The civil police officer comrade Lin Wanlin of the Public Security Bureau of Fuqing was attacked by gunmen while investigating a very serious case of robbery. The Provincial People's Government of Fujian awarded Lin Wanlin the title of Revolutionary Martyr. The Ministry of Public Security posthumously awarded Lin Wanlin the title of Model Hero Second Class of the National Public Security System.

7. The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance (2015) No. 1 remote crime scene investigation record, Xia Public (Net) Electronic Inspection (2015) No. 6 electronic data examination transcript proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan) and on historical Weibo data related to Wu Gan's Sina Weibo account with the pseudonym "Happy Love Sunshine Charity" (UID:2345898410) collected tweets, links, and historical microblogs posted by Wu Gan that insulted and abuse the then Public Security Bureau of Fuqing Director Lin Doe, and defamed the revolutionary martyr Lin Wanlin as a "protector of organized crime."

The relevant content was confirmed by Wu Gan as having been posted by him on the Internet.

8. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: From April 2012 to May 2013, because he was dissatisfied with the civil police officers who handled the Xu Xiaoshun case, he posted some insulting and defamatory remarks about the chief of the public security bureau on Weibo and Twitter. He did not know who Lin Wanlin was, and said on Weibo and Twitter that Lin Wanlin was a fake hero, a member of organized crime, and a protector of organized crime.

V. Sensationalizing the Administrative Detention Case of Tang Jitian et. al.

In March 2014, the Public Security Bureau of the Jiansanjiang Agricultural Reclamation Area (hereinafter referred to as the Public Security Bureau of Jiansanjiang) administratively detained in accordance with the law Tang Jitian and other relevant individuals who disturbed social order. Some people took the opportunity to gather and commit affrays in Jiansanjiang and other places. After defendant Wu Gan learned about it, he used information networks to continuously sensationalize it, encourage fundraising for on-site affrays, inciting others to gather at the scene, issuing "wanted reward posters" with insulting content, denigrating and belittling the image of the people's police, smearing organs of the State, and inciting people to confront and oppose the State regime.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. The Administrative Punishment Decision produced by the Public Security Bureau of the Jiansanjiang proved: On March 22, 2014, Tang Jitian and others were taken into administrative detention for disrupting social order. On March 30, 2014, Zhai Yanmin and others incited and conspired with others to appear in front of the Qixing Detention Center to express "solidarity" with the illegal assembly of Tang Jitian and others and were administratively detained by the Public Security Bureau of the Jiansanjiang.

2. Testimony of witness Zhai Yanmin proved: He saw in a WeChat group that Tang Jitian and other four lawyers were arrested in Jiansanjiang, and he took people to Jiansanjiang to express solidarity. On March 24, 2014, he and Xiang Li took more than ten people to the Public Security Bureau of Jiansanjiang's Qixing Detention Center and raised the placard. On March 25, he and Wang Yu and others went to the Qixing Detention Center to display banners and demonstrate with lawyers. Wu Gan published posts in various groups expressing solidarity with the Jiansanjiang lawyers and soliciting fundraising, encouraging "Citizens" to participate in the solidarity activities, and the costs for the solidarity activities was raised by Wu Gan. Lawyers, "citizens," and petitioners used WeChat as a platform to connect with one another and share a common concept of "pushing against the wall." Each incident was instigated by the lawyers, who would be the first to arrive at the scene, "Citizens" and petitioners would come along next and continue to sensationalize and ferment the incident. This is a fixed model for sensationalizing things. The goal was to figure out how to overthrow the existing legal system, overthrow the leadership of the Communist Party, and bring about a "color revolution" and "peaceful transformation."

3. Testimony of witness Liu Sixin proved: After Tang Jitian and others were detained, someone formed a WeChat "Solidarity" group specifically to raise funds for lawyers and petitioners who wanted to go and express solidarity and create momentum. Wu Gan was among the sponsors of the fundraising.

4. Testimony of witness Yu Wenbo (civil police at the Public Security Bureau of the Jiansanjiang) proved: On March 22, 2014, in accordance with the law the Public Security Bureau of Jiansanjiangin administratively detained Tang Jitian and others who disrupted social order. Afterwards, a large number of "rights defenders" gathered at the gate of the Qixing Detention Center and shouted slogans. During the aforementioned incident, their mobile phones, office phones, and home phones received a large number of harassing calls and things were basically in a state of paralysis. The Director of the Public Security Bureau of the Jiansanjiang and others were also harassed.

5. Testimony of witness Liu Doe (then Chief of the Public Security Bureau of Jiansanjiang) and personally written records proved: In March 2014, in accordance with the law the Public Security Bureau of Jiansanjiang detained a group of "Human Rights Lawyers" and Wu Gan for making "wanted reward posters" with his face and posting them on the Internet, doxxing him, publicizing his phone number and inciting Internet users to call and send text messages to harass him, and insulting, attacking, and intimidating him personally through online postings. Wu Gan's deliberate inciting and sensationalizing caused "rights defenders" from all over the country to illegally gather in Jiansanjiang for demonstrations, which seriously disrupted social order in the Jiansanjiang area, and caused an extremely bad impact on the reputation of the provincial, reclamation area, and the Party committees of the Jiansanjiang Administration Bureau, as well as the political and legal system.

6. Testimony of witness Liu Changhe (then Captain of the National Security Brigade of the Public Security Bureau of Jiansanjiang) proved: Since March 22, 2014, Wu Gan continuously published insults, personal attacks, and intimidating posts targeting him through Tencent Weibo, mobile phone text messages, etc., and collected information about his home address, family situation, and children's school on the Internet. He publicized his phone number and encouraged Internet users to harass him by calling and texting him. Wu Gan's behavior not only caused serious damage to his reputation, but also called into question the credibility of public security agency's law enforcement.

7. Testimony of witness Han Kui (then Director of the Public Security Bureau of Jiansanjiang's Qixing Detention Center) proved: After Tang Jitian and others were detained in the Qixing Detention Center, an illegal gathering of protests occurred in front of the detention center. The phones of the Qixing Detention Center and the mobile phones of the staff were constantly harassed. The general content was to request the release of the detainees, and some calls threatened physical attacks and intimidation.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by testimony of Fang Yuxian, a civil police officer at the Qixing Detention Center.

8. The brief information about the "3.20" incident, and the evidentiary material about how the "3.20" incident affected the Qixing Detention Center and its harmful consequences produced by the Public Security Bureau of Jiansanjiang proved: On March 20, 2014, Tang Jitian and others gathered in Jiansanjiang to engage in activities that created nuisance. On March 22, the Public Security Bureau of  Jiansanjiang detained the aforementioned individuals in accordance with the law. Since then, in imposed 11 administrative detentions in accordance with the law. People from various provinces and cities gathered in Jiansanjiang. Some people gathered in front of the Qixing Detention Center, sitting in demonstrations, shouting slogans, putting up banners, etc. They posted information on the Internet that contained manipulated text and photos, maliciously sensationalizing things. The aforementioned behavior severely impacted the normal office order of the detention center and neighboring detention centers, resulting in blockage in front of detention centers, and vehicles and staff handling cases could not pass normally. The public security agency administratively detained 16 people in accordance with the law.

9. Video taken in front of Qixing Detention Center provided by the Public Security Bureau of Jiansanjiang proved: Zhai Yanmin and others gathered in front of the detention center, shouted slogans, took photos with slogans, etc.

10. The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Electronic Inspection (2015) No. 3 electronic data investigation record, Xia Public (Net)Remote Surveillance (2015) No. 1 remote crime scene investigation record, Li Gong (Net) Electronic Inspection (2015) No. 12 electronic data investigation record proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan), historical Weibo data related to Wu Gan's Sina Weibo accounts with the pseudonyms "Happy Love Sunshine Charity" (UID:2345898410) and "Super Vulgar Butcher"(UID: 3735687154), and on Wu Gan's WeChat Moments collected tweets, links, and historical microblogs posted by Wu Gan sensationalizing the administrative detention cases of Tang Jitian and others, as well as related statements posted by Wu Gan in his WeChat Moments concerning the administrative detention cases of Tang Jitian and others. The main content was to express "solidarity" with Tang Jitian and others and those individuals who committed affrays at the scene, raise funds for individuals who committed affrays at the scene, encourage the "doxxing" of public security civil police, and issue "wanted reward posters" containing insults.

The relevant content was confirmed by Wu Gan as having been posted by him on the Internet.

11. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: At the beginning of 2014, he saw on the Internet that Tang Jitian and four other people were taken into administrative detention , and he began to pay attention to this incident. Later, he drafted a fundraising proposal and published it on the Internet, and acted as the supervisor and contact person with Liu Sixin. The money was to encourage more people to go to express solidarity and reimburse these people for transportation, accommodation, and other normal expenses. After about ten days, he made a "wanted reward poster" at home, and solicited information on the Director of the Public Security Bureau of Jiansanjiang's corruption. Afterwards, he repeatedly published relevant information about, and his own views on, the Jiansanjiang incident, and published the contact information of the relevant civil police, and exhorted everyone to call the civil police to harass them. His reason for intervening in this incident was to express solidarity with Tang Jitian and others, and condemnation of the government's persecution of them.

VI. Sensationalizing the Case of Huang Yudong and Others Gathering a Crowd to Disrupt Social Order

In January 2015, Huang Yudong and others were punished by the Intermediate People's Court of Huaihua, Hunan which sentenced them in accordance with the law for the crime of assembling a crowd to disrupt social order. During the trial of the case, Li Heping (already sentenced) used funds provided by a foreign organization to lead defendant Wu Gan and others to Mayang Miao Autonomous County (hereinafter referred to as Mayang County) in Huaihua, Hunan to sensationalize the case. On May 20, 2014, Wu Gan went to the front gate of the Mayang County Party Committee and County Government to commit affrays, and he took photos and uploaded them to the Internet. Afterwards, Wu Gan continuously engaged in malicious instigation on the Internet, distorted facts, smeared and vilified the image of State agencies and their staff, and shaped public opinion to incite hatred of the State regime.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. Testimony of witness Zhao Jun (a staff member at the Mayang County People's Government) and identification records proved: One morning in May 2014, two people were at the gate of the county government. One of them was somewhat fat and holding a sign and the other was videotaping. He took the two to the letters and visits7 reception room. They stayed for less than a minute and then ran away with a sign. The sign seemed to say "Secretary Hu Doe,8 the Butcher is Here to Give You Money." Zhao Jun identified Wu Gan as the man who held up the sign and committed affrays.


2. Testimony of witness Yang Guoxin (a staff member at the Mayang County People's Government) proved: One morning in the summer of 2014, he heard a commotion in the county committee compound. He went out and saw a man holding a sign that said "Secretary Hu Doe, the Butcher is Here to Give You Money," and a man next to him was videotaping him. Hu Doe is the secretary of the Mayang County Party Committee.

3. Testimony of witness Li Heping proved: In May 2014, he asked Wu Gan to go to Hunan to expose the case of Huang Yudong and others. Wu Gan went to the gate of the Mayang County Government and held up a sign with somewhat radical text on it, took photos and posted them on the Internet to sensationalize it. His travel expenses with Wu Gan and others was paid by a project that he had cooperated on a foreign organization.

4. Testimony of witness Gao Yue proved: He works in the Sanyuanqiao office of Li Heping. In the accounts he processed for May 2014, there is a sum of expenses for Li Heping, Wu Gan and others to handle a case in Mayang County. These expenses were to be reimbursed by a foreign institution.

5. The (2013) Ma Criminal First Instance No. 47 criminal judgment and the Intermediate People's Court of Huaihua, Hunan's (2013) Huai Intermediate Criminal First Final No. 39 and No. 128 criminal rulings submitted by the Mayang County People's Court proved: Huang Yudong and others were sentenced for the crime of gathering crowds to disrupt social order.

6. The Public Security Bureau of Tianjin's Electronic Evidence Forensic Analysis Center's Jin Public (Net) Inspection (2016) No. 151 remote crime scene investigation record proved: After checking the Sina Weibo data related to Wu Gan, it was found that the Weibo account with the pseudonym "Happy Love Sunshine Public Welfare" (UID: 2345898410) continued to publish posts to sensationalize the case of Huang Yudong and others in Mayang County. The content of the photos released on May 20, 2014 was: Wu Tu held up a sign at front gate of the Mayang County Party Committee and County Government. The sign read "Secretary Hu Doe, the Butcher is Here to Give You Money."

7. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: In April 2014, Li Heping said that he was looking into a case in Mayang County, Hunan, and asked him if he had time to go there with him to look into it, and he agreed. That month, he and Li Heping and others went to Mayang County and made a billboard saying "Mayang County Committee Secretary Hu Doe, the Butcher is Here to Give You Money," and they then went to the county party committee and county government to engage in "Performance Art." He held up the billboard and asked passers-by to take pictures, and posted the photos on Weibo, in order to put pressure on the local government. As he said in the "Three Treasures," if you want to solve the problem, you need to find the local leaders and target them to find out whether they have corruption or other issues.

VII. Sensationalizing the Case of Yu Shiwen and Others Disturbing the Peace

In May 2014, the Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou, Henan opened a case investigation in accordance with the law into Yu Shiwen and others who were suspected of committing the crime of disturbing the peace. Yu Shiwen and others were held in custody at the Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center. Zhai Yanmin learned about it and organized many people to gather and commit affrays at the Center. Defendant Wu Gan made active use of information networks to intervene to sensationalize it and to raise funds for affrays. In July of the same year, Wu Gan went to Zhengzhou and worked with Zhai Yanmin and others to advise on activities to sensationalize things, engaged in "performance art" in front of the detention center, posted related photos and "citations" containing insults to information networks, insulted and belittled State personnel, attacked State agencies, and caused an adverse political impact.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. The Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou's Erliang Precinct's Decision to Open a Case, Detention Certificate, etc. proved: On May 26, 2014, the Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou's Erliang Precinct opened a case in accordance with the law for an investigation into Yu Shiwen and others. The following day, Yu Shiwen and others were taken into criminal detention. Arrests were executed on July 3 of the same year, and they were held in custody at the Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center.

2. Testimony of witness Zhai Yanmin proved: He saw news about the case of Yu Shiwen and others in a WeChat group, and later saw the news that the lawyer was holding up a sign at the the Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou, and went to Zhengzhou with Liu Xing and others to express solidarity. Around July 8, 2014, the supporters were in Zhengzhou. A coordination meeting was held to organize and plan  activities to express solidarity. Zhang Junjie, Wu Gan, Wang Yi and others participated. Wang Yi proposed that this time fundraising would be initiated by Wu Gan. Wu Gan said that he had done that in the Sanjiang affair, and he was afraid if he did it again this time he would be arrested. After further deliberation, it was decided that Teng Biao would sponsor the fundraising, Lin Bin would be the sign holder, Liu Shihui and Yuan Xue would be the supervisors, and he would serve as the general coordinator at the scene. The meeting also decided to use the lawyer's arrest as a springboard for sensationalizing things, and requests were made to meet to determine the theme for the banner and to establish a WeChat general group and a WeChat coordination group. At 9:00 a.m. the next day, everyone began to arrive at the Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center to express solidarity and display banners. That solidarity activity lasted for about a month. In mid-July, Wu Gan went to the Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center to express solidarity at the scene, and posted a "citation" in front of the detention center, and made a "leg gun"9 action. At the end of July, Wu Gan went to the scene twice to encourage everyone to continue to express solidarity. The incident was to use solidarity and sensationalizing sensitive events to encourage people to take to the streets to create conflicts between officials and the people, so as to achieve the goals of overthrowing the existing system, overthrowing the leadership of the Communist Party, and creating "color revolutions" and "peaceful transformation."

3. Testimony of witness Lin Bin proved: Teng Biao contacted him to raise funds to support individuals detained in Zhengzhou, and asked him to provide a bank account. Teng Biao posted the account he provided online through Sina Weibo, Tencent Weibo, and WeChat Moments. The money raised was transferred to the people who were on the scene expressing solidarity.

4. Testimony of witness Yang Fuxi (staff member at the Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center) proved: On July 12, 2014, Wu Gan and a few people came to the gate of the No. 3 Detention Center. Wu Gan faced the gate, with his hands folded and one foot lifted up. He then proceeded to take a photo of the detention center sign, and took out a piece of paper and pasted it under the detention center sign, sat on the ground and picked up one leg, and took pictures with his foot pointed toward the detention center. Afterwards the people left.

5. Testimony of witness Huang Doe10 proved: In 2014, while he was serving as the Director of the Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou, Wu Gan stepped in to sensationalize the case of Yu Shiwen disturbing the peace that the Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou was investigating at the time, and denigrated and slandered him on the Internet for no reason. He successively produced "citations" on the Internet, and mobilized Internet users to engage in the "performance art" of shooting leg guns at "Huang Doe." Wu Gan also offered a reward on the Internet to encourage Internet users to publish exposés about them.

6. The Explanation of Circumstances produced by the Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center proved: From July 6 to August 1, 2014, a hundred people who had not connection to the case of Yu Shiwen and others gathered at the entrance of the Center every day, putting up banners and placards, and shouting slogans demanding the release of detainees. Some people were at the entrance of the Center setting up tents, going on hunger strikes, and posting photos of hunger strikers on the Internet, inciting and sensationalizing the matter, and taking the opportunity to publish attacks on the Party and government, triggering a large number of Internet users who did not know the truth to repost commentary.

7.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance (2015) No. 1 remote crime scene investigation record and Xia Public (Net) Electronic Inspection (2015) No. 8 electronic data investigation record proved:  A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan), and historical Weibo data related to Wu Gan's Sina Weibo accounts with the pseudonyms "Happy Love Sunshine Charity" (UID:2345898410) and "Super Vulgar Butcher"(UID: 3735687154) collected tweets and historical microblogs that contained "citations" that insulted or belittled the Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou and its staff, Wu Gan's "solidarity" with individuals who engaged in affrays at the scene, and his raising funds for individuals who engaged in affrays.

The relevant content was confirmed by Wu Gan as having been posted by him on the Internet.

8.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Electronic Inspection (2015) No. 12 electronic data investigation record proved: In Wu Gan's WeChat Moments in the account wxid-jah3jvtel34u12 (Pseudonym "The Super Vulgar Butcher Currently Using") it was found that Wu Gan had posted information relating to the case of Yu Shiwen others disturbing the peace. The main content instigated others to gather in Zhengzhou, raise funds for the gathering of people at the scene, engage in "performance art" in front of the Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center, and publish "citations" that contained insults and content that belittled the Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou and its staff.

9. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: In May 2014, he learned through the Internet that Yu Shiwen and others had been arrested, and he intervened in the matter. In early July, Hua Chunhui and others hoped that he would initiate fundraising. They were afraid of being caught, so they recommended that Lin Bin, Hua Chunhui, and Teng Biao organize the fundraising. During that period, he was the first to post tweets on the Internet to help build bridges between those people who went to express solidarity with those who want to provide funds for expressing solidarity. He went to Zhengzhou twice, once in early July 2014. Through communication and coordination at the scene, everyone reached an agreement on some key issues of this event to express solidarity. Once at the end of July of the same year, he sent watermelons to Internet users who were expressing solidarity in front of the No. 3 Detention Center to express our condolences and support. He took photos and videos that were uploaded to the Internet. In addition, he adopted the methods in "Three Great Classics" and made a "citation" in a satirical form belittling the Director of the Public Security Bureau of Zhengzhou and posted it on the Internet. He published his phone number on the Internet to let everyone "keep an eye" on him. He engaged in "Performance Art" at the gate of Zhengzhou No. 3 Detention Center, and posted pictures on the Internet.

VIII. Sensationalizing the Administrative Punish Case of Cheng Hai and Others

In September 2014, the lawyer Cheng Hai was punished by the Beijing Changping District Law Bureau in accordance with the law for disrupting court order. After defendant Wu Gan learned that a hearing on the proposed administrative punishment of Cheng Hai would be held at Sunshine Midway Home in Changping District, he used information networks, to encourage others to gather at the scene to engage in affrays. On the morning of September 5, Wu Gan held a sign and, in collusion with others, gathered to engage in affrays outside the gate where the hearing was being held. That night, Liu Sixin and others went to the Public Security Bureau of Beijing's Changping Branch's Longyuan Police Precinct and "expressed solidarity" with the individuals that had engaged in affrays at the scene who were being vetted at the Precinct. He was taken into administrative detention for insulting the police and disrupting the order of the Precinct. After learning about this Wu Gan published posts on his Sina Weibo and Twitter accounts, smearing and belittling the public security agency and its staff, and incited hatred against the State regime.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. The Administrative Punishment Decision, the Hearing Announcement, and the "Regarding the Holding of the Administrative Punishment Hearing of Lawyer Cheng Hai" provided by the Bureau of Justice of Changping District, Beijing, proved: Cheng Hai is with the Beijing Wutian Law Firm. On January 27, 2014, while Cheng Hai was participating in trial hearings as a defense counsel he disobeyed a court order, disrupting court order, and disrupting the normal progress of a litigation action. On September 5, 2014, the Changping District Justice Bureau held a hearing on the proposed administrative punishment for Cheng Hai at the Sunshine Midway Home in Changping District. On September 15, it was decided to impose an administrative punishment on Cheng Hai by suspending him from practicing law for one year.

2. Testimony of witness Yang Hongchang (catering manager at the Beijing Xiuhua Farms Tourism and Sightseeing Park) proved: On September 5, 2014, a hearing was held at Xiuhua Farms. On the same day, nearly a hundred people came to the entrance of the farm, clamoring to rush in. Some became entangled with the people maintaining order at the scene, some raised signs to protest, some took pictures, and there were several people who also wore clothes with protest content on them. Employees' access was affected, and security guards were pushed while trying to persuade people to leave, and he called the police.

3. Testimony of witness Li Qinghua (auxiliary police at the Public Security Bureau of Beijing, Changping Branch, Machikou Police Precinct) and identification records proved: At about 9:00 am on the day of the hearing, a bald, somewhat obese, man came to the scene and arranged to gather people to take pictures at the entrance of the farm. Later, the bald man held a sign with words in front of his chest. The police stepped forward to put a stop to it and took the cards away. The bald man insulted the police and shouted that the police had robbed him, and others also shouted. Based on his identification, the bald man was Wu Gan.

4. Testimony of witness Li Zheng (civil police at the Public Security Bureau of Beijing, Changping Branch) and identification records proved: On the day of the hearing, people gathered at the entrance of Xiuhua Farms, blocked the gate, pulled up banners, raised placards, and took photos. During that period, a man held up a piece of A4 paper with both hands with text printed on it. He snatched the paper away, and the man immediately loudly insulted the civil police. He then, in collusion with others, surrounded the police and shouted "thief," causing chaos on the scene. When the police entered the gate, the man also shouted "Get the hell out of here." Based on his identification, the bald man was Wu Gan.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by Hai Bo, civil police at the Public Security Bureau of Beijing's Changping Branch, and identification records.

5. Testimony of witness Liu Sixin proved: After seeing the news that a "citizen" who went to the hearing was taken to the Longyuan Police Precinct, he rushed to the Longyuan Police Precinct and shouted outside. He did not recall if there were any swear words. Ma Qiang was also very worked up about the matter and yelled and cursed as well. The two of them were taken into administrative detention for seven days because they disrupted the order of the Precinct.

6. Testimony of witness Li Doe11 (the Director of the Public Security Bureau of Beijing's Changping Branch's Longyuan Police Precinct) and personally written records proved: On September 5, 2014, the Longyuan Police Precinct received an order to bring in the people who made trouble at the hearing to Xiuhua Farms for vetting. That night, a group of people came into the office and created a scene, and two of them were taken into detention by the police precinct. On September 8, Wu Gan posted four pictures on the Internet and a post that said "Everyone Play With the Dog"12 to insult him. He also incited Internet users to harass him.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by the Explanation of Circumstances materials produced by the Public Security Bureau of Beijing, Changping Branch and the testimony of witnesses Li Chunpeng and Mao Dongtao, civil police at the Longyuan Police Precinct.

7. The business license and the Explanation of Circumstances produced by Beijing Xiuhua Farms Tourist and Sightseeing Park and the Explanation of Circumstances produced by the Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Siming Precinct proved: The Beijing Xiuhua Farms Tourist and Sightseeing Park is also known as Xiuhua Farms, and the Sunshine Midway Home in Changping District is part of the tourist park area.

8.The Machikou Police Precinct's case registration form, records of Wu Gan's questioning, and the process of how the defendant came into police custody produced by the Public Security Bureau of Beijing, Changping Branch proved: On September 5, 2014, the public security agency in accordance with the law summoned Wu Gan, who was at the front entrance of Xiuhua Farms where the hearing of Cheng Hai was being held, to go to the police precinct. Wu Gan admitted that he came to the entrance of Xiuhua Farms on that day.

9. The Longyuan Police Precinct's case registration forms and Administrative Penalty Decisions produced by the Pre-Trial Brigade of the Public Security Bureau of Beijing, Changping Branch proved: On September 5, 2014, Liu Sixin and Ma Qiang insulted the civil police in front of entrance to the Longyuan Police Precinct and disrupted the order of the Precinct. The Changping Branch in accordance with the law decided to impose seven days administrative detention on both of them.


10. Live video taken by the police on duty produced by the Public Security Bureau of Beijing, Changping Branch proved: The circumstances in which Wu Gan and others illegally gathered to create a disturbance in front of the entrance to Xiuhua Farms.

11.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Electronic Inspection (2015) No. 5 and No. 7 electronic data investigation records, the Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance (2015) No. 1 remote crime scene investigation record, and the Xia Public (Net) Electronic Inspection (2015) No. 12 electronic data investigation record proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan), historical Weibo data related to Wu Gan's Sina Weibo account with the pseudonym "Happy Love Sunshine Charity" (UID:2345898410), and on Wu Gan's WeChat Moments collected tweets, links, and historical microblogs posted by Wu Gan that spread content such as "Cheng Hai's Hearing Route," calling on Internet users to "express solidarity," belittling public security police, and belittling the public security agency's retaliatory law enforcement.

The relevant content was confirmed by Wu Gan as having been posted by him on the Internet.

12. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: After he learned that Yu Chenghai's hearing would be held on September 5, 2014, he posted a route to the site of the hearing on the Internet. On the same day, he went to the site of the hearing. There were many people at the scene, some of them Internet users and lawyers. He wrote a placard at the scene which read "Law's Cult of Death Justice Bureau is a cancer on civilized society,"13 and the placard was later taken away. After the hearing, he learned that Liu Sixin and Ma Qiang had been detained and that Internet users had initiated a "play dog" operation. They reposted pictures of Li Doe, the director of the police station, along with their own commentary on Weibo and Twitter, in order to express solidarity with Liu Sixin and Ma Qiang. The hearing was an act of retaliation by the Changping District Justice Bureau, and he went to express solidarity to show support for Cheng Hai.

XI. Sensationalizing the Lu Yong Lease Contract Dispute Case

In December 2014, Lu Yong, a friend of defendant Wu Gan, prepared to lodge a complaint with the Intermediate People's Court of Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan (hereinafter referred to as the Intermediate People's Court of Dali) on his lease contract dispute, and through Wu Gan retained the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm. Zhou Shifeng, the director of the firm agreed, and instructed Wu Gan to cooperate with Xie Yuandong to go to the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture to engage in sensationalizing and affrays. In January 2015, Wu Gan posted slogans in Dali Intermediate Court and other places, and drove a car with the slogan at the gate of Dali Intermediate Court. At the same time, in order to sensationalize the issue he continuously posted information and photos of his affrays in Dali through his Sina Weibo and Twitter and the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm Weibo accounts, fabricated facts to attack the Intermediate People's Court of Dali and that court's President, belittled and discredited the image of the judiciary and its staff, and incited people who did not know the truth to hate the State judicial system.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. Testimony of witness Lu Yong proved: He reached a court-sponsored mediation agreement in a dispute over a lease contract with a third party and fulfilled his obligations thereunder. Later,  through his friend Wu Gan he retained the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm to file an appeal. In early 2015, he came to Dali with Wu Gan and Xie Yuandong. While in Dali, he negotiated with Wu Gan and Xie Yuandong to print placards with content such as The President of the Intermediate People's Court of Dali Perverted Justice for Personal Gain, put them on a car, drive the car back and forth in front of the court gate, and then park the car at the court gate.

2. Testimony of witness Zhou Shifeng proved: In January 2015, Lu Yong had a civil case in Dali and he needed to retain a lawyer, and he assigned Xie Yuandong and Wu Gan to go to Dali specifically to handle the case. On the second or third day after Wu Gan and Xie Yuandong arrived in Dali Wu Gan called and said he had had Lu Yong spend money to rent a small local car, put things like placards on a car on which were printed content such as The President of the Intermediate People's Court of Dali Perverted Justice for Personal Gain, and drive the car in and around the court. Wu Gan also shouted slogans at the scene.

3. Testimony of witness Xie Yuandong proved: In January 2015, Zhou Shifeng asked him and Wu Gan to go to Dali for Lu Yong's case. When he asked Wu Gan for materials, Wu Gan said: "I will give this one a whirl." After hearing this, he said: "I am responsible for poking the court. You're responsible for creating a scene." On the morning of January 8, he, Wu Gan, and Lu Yong went to the Intermediate People's Court of Dali. Wu Gan posted pre-prepared placards around the court, took photos of the placards, and afterwards posted them online. The next day, those three people posted placards at the entrance of the People's Procuratorate of the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture, and took photos and posted them on the Internet. After lunch, passing by the Intermediate People's Court of Dali, Wu Gan saw that the placards he had posted at the entrance of the court the day before was gone, so he got out of the car and posted another one, and asked Lu Yong to take a photo for him, and then Wu Gan posted the photo online. The main content of the placard was that the President of the Intermediate People's Court of Dali had perverted justice for personal gain, and there was a picture of President on it.

4. Testimony of witness Li Xiongzhang (then Vice President of the Intermediate People's Court of Dali) proved: On January 8, 2015, someone called and said that a placard attacking President Bao Doe14 was posted in front of the court, and he asked the bailiff Zhang Liang to have someone deal with it. Soon, Zhang Liang came back to say that five or six placards were found on the pillars of the court building, the gate, the poles and boxes on the opposite side, and the bulletin board at the door of Dali Procuratorate, all of which reflected on President Bao Doe. He kept all the placards. On January 12, someone called and said that a placard reflecting President Bao Doe's problems was posted in the judge's community behind the court, and he instructed the bailiff Li Lifeng to deal with it. Soon, Li Lifeng said that he found about 10 placards in the judge's community and the surrounding area. These placards had photos of Bao Doe, on which are written insulting words such as Bao Doe perverted justice for personal gain, and was gangster who is blind to the law.

The aforementioned was corroborated by the testimony of witnesses Zhang Liang, Dong Guangyi, and Li Jinde, bailiffs at the Intermediate People's Court of Dali.

5. Testimony of witness Zhuang Jinglong (bailiff at the Intermediate People's Court of Dali) proved: at 7:00 am on January 12, 2015, he was in the surveillance room and found a car parked next to the gate of the court, and he and his colleagues went to the court gate to inspect it. Wu Gan and Lu Yong were next to the car. The front hood, rear windshield glass and all the windows on the side of the car were covered with placards saying that President Bao Doe was blind to the law, was a gangster, was perverting justice for personal gain, etc. In order to avoid crowds of onlookers gathering, he asked Wu Gan to drive into the courtyard. After Wu Gan drove into the courtyard, he drove around the front yard of the court in what felt like a demonstration.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by Yang Zhi and Wang Junbo, bailiffs at the Intermediate People's Court of Dali.

6. Testimony of witness Bao Doe (then President of the Intermediate People's Court of Dali) proved: One day in January 2015, he received a call from Vice President Yang Ruidong saying that one of the parties involved in a case was making trouble, and he asked Yang Ruidong to arrange for someone to handle it and collect the relevant materials. The next day, Yang Ruidong reported to him that the person was Wu Gan, Lu Yong and a trainee lawyer in Beijing showed him two sets of materials containing accusations. One was text, and the content was something about his suspected crimes, perverting justice for personal gain, etc., and the other was a placard with his photo on it and next to the photo there were two lines of text "I am a gangster and fear no one. I am blind to the law and fear no one!" A few days later, there was a car parked in front of the court, and the broken glass of the car was covered with placards that read "Bao Doe Perverted Justice for Personal Gain" and "Suspected of Committing Crimes."

7. Testimony of witness Ruan Caixing (then President of the People's Procuratorate of the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture) proved: One day in January 2015, Wu Gan, Lu Yong, and a person who claimed to be a Beijing lawyer went to the People's Procuratorate to file a complaint against Bao Doe, President of the Intermediate People's Court of Dali for perverting justice for personal gain. Later, they found that they had posted a placard on the door of Procuratorate. The placard had a photo of Bao Doe and said that Bao Doe had perverted justice for personal gain. He gave the placard to Li Tiancong, Deputy Director of the Prosecution Division, for safekeeping.

The aforementioned witness testimony is corroborated by the testimony of witness Li Tiancong, then Deputy Director of the Prosecution Division of the People's Procuratorate of the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture.

8. Testimony of witness Feng Anmei (a staff member at the People's Government of the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture) proved: At noon one day in early January 2015, she saw a placard posted on a pillar at the gate of the prefecture government about the President Bao Doe of the prefecture court.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by the testimony of witness Yang Wensheng, Chief of the Security Section of the People's Government of the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture.

9. The Intermediate People's Court of Dali's (2011) Da Intermediate Civil Final No. 74 civil judgment, (2014) Da Intermediate Civil Declaration No. 22 civil ruling, (2014) Da Zhong Civil Rehearing No. 1 civil mediation, and the Dali City People's Court's (2010) Da Second First Instance No. 453 civil judgment provided by those courts proved: The circumstances of the handling of Lu Yong's lease contract dispute case.

10. The court surveillance video, reception transcripts, and the criminal complaints submitted by Lu Yong and others provided by the Intermediate People's Court of Dali proved: On January 8, 2015, Wu Gan, Lu Yong and others went to the Intermediate People's Court of Dali to file a complaint about President Bao Doe. At 8:00 am on January 12, Wu Gan and Lu Yong parked a car with the license plate number of Guangdong B7FH81 at the entrance to the court. There were placards on the car's body that read "Bao Doe is Blind to the Law," "Perverting Justice for Personal Gain," "Send Money to Bao Doe,"  and "He Dared to Betray the Law" and other contents. Then Wu Gan drove the car into the Intermediate People's Court of Dali's courtyard and Lu Yong took pictures and videos for Wu Gan.

11.Public Security Bureau of Dali's North District Police Precinct's Police Registration Form and the case complaint materials and leaflets provided by the Intermediate People's Court of Dali proved: On January 12, 2015, the Intermediate People's Court of Dali reported the actions of Wu Gan and Xie Yuandong to the public security agency. On January 15, the Public Security Bureau of Dali conducted an investigation into the Intermediate People's Court of Dali's case complaint and received 18 relevant evidentiary materials and leaflets provided by the Intermediate People's Court of Dali. Among these, on January 8, 2015, leaflets were collected from the Intermediate People's Court of Dali and the surrounding area with content such as "Bao Doe of Dali Prefecture Uses the Intermediate Court for Personal Gain," photos of Bao Doe, and Lu Yong's case ruling. The content of the flyers collected in front of the People's Government of the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture on January 9 were the same as the above. On January 12th, the flyers with the aforementioned content were collected again in the judge's community and the surrounding area. At the same time, they also collected placards whose primary content was "Bao Doe is Blind to the Law," "Perverting Justice for Personal Gain," "Send Money to Bao Doe," and "He Dared to Betray the Law."

12. Screenshots of surveillance video from in front of the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture Government gate provided by the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture's Bureau of Agency Affairs Management proved: On January 9, 2015, Wu Gan posted a placard at the gate of the prefecture government.

13. The "Letter of Reply Regarding the Case of 'Zhou Shifeng et al. Suspected of Subverting State Power and Inciting Subversion of State Power'" and the electronic data CD produced by the Beijing Weimeng Chuangke Network Technology Co., Ltd. proved: The Weibo registration information, content and number of reposts and comments retrieved by the public security agency from that company for the accounts with the pseudonyms "Zhou Shifeng Lawyer" (UID: 2241841747 ) and Beijing Fengrui Law Firm"(UID: 2916377514 ).

14. The Jin Public (Net) Inspection (2016) No. 059 and No. 064 electronic data investigation work records and the Jin Public (Net) Surveillance (2016) No. 021 remote crime scene investigation record produced by the Public Security Bureau of Tianjin's Electronic Evidence Forensic Analysis Center proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Weibo data related to the Sina Weibo account with the pseudonyms "Happy Love Sunshine Charity" (UID:2345898410) and "the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm" (UID: 2916377514 ), and historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan), collected historical microblogs and tweets related to the Lu Yong lease contract dispute, the main content of which was to accuse the Intermediate People's Court of Dali President Bao Doe of breaking the law and Party discipline, accepting bribes, treating the court as a personal fiefdom, treating the law as a commodity to be sold, claiming that Wu Gan and others would go and expose it, and recording the circumstances in which Wu Gan and others posted placards around the court.

15. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: In December 2014, he introduced Fengrui Law Firm to represent Lu Yong in a housing lease case, and Zhou Shifeng gave the case to Xie Yuandong for handling. On the morning of January 8, 2015, he and Lu Yong and Xie Yuandong went to Dali, where he produced posters and placards with the words "Bao Doe's Private Fiefdom the Intermediate Court in Dali Prefecture" and made about 30 copies. On the morning of the 9th, he and Lu Yong went to the Intermediate People's Court of Dali and put up a poster on a pillar at the entrance to the court. On the morning of the 10th, he and Xie Yuandong and Lu Yong put up the same poster at the entrance of the People's Procuratorate of the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture, and then posted one at the entrance of the People's Government of the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture. Lu Yong took pictures of him. On the 12th, he posted placards on the windows on both sides of a car, and Lu Yong drove the car to the entrance of the court, and then drove around the court's courtyard. Lu Yong took pictures. He also posted a promotional poster on the entrance of the court. In the process of intervening in this case, he posted the relevant information on Twitter and Weibo with his mobile phone, with comments and photos.

X. Sensationalizing the Fan Mugen Intentional Assault Case

On December 3, 2013, Fan Mugen wounded people with a knife in Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, and the public security agency opened a case for investigation, which attracted significant public attention. On January 19, 2014, defendant Wu Gan participated in the "Fan Mugen Case Seminar" in Beijing, declaring that "this system will never end, it will prey upon people forever," and encouraged various groups to jointly confront and oppose the State regime. In January 2015, Wu Gan learned that the case was about to go to trial, and he incited others on the Internet to go to Suzhou to gather illegally. During that period, Wu Gan used the Internet to continuously maliciously sensationalize the case, endeavoring to expand people's awareness of it and provoking people who did not know the truth to hate, confront, and oppose the State regime.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. After the Spring Festival in 2015, before the first hearing of the Fan Mugen case, Wu Gan published a post about fundraising for lawyers and those who went to express solidarity. The lawyers also posted about when the case was being tried, and expressed hope that people from all over the country would come to observe and express solidarity. After that, many people went to Suzhou, including Liu Xing and others, to express solidarity. Seven or eight hundred people gathered outside the court during the first hearing.

2. Testimony of witness Gou Hongguo proved: He participated in a seminar on a model case in a hotel near Liuliqiao in Fengtai District, Beijing. Participants included Liu Sixin, Wu Gan, Zhou Hong and others. The seminar was about how to sensationalize the Fan Mugen case and expand people's attention to it and maximize its social impact.

3. Testimony of witness Liu Sixin proved: In January 2014, he participated in a seminar on the Fan Mugen case. The content was his expressions of his opinions about the Fan Mugen case. During a dinner with Hu Shigen, Wu Gan and others, he and Wu Gan and others mentioned that it was necessary to expose and criticize local governments and put pressure on the government. Local petitioners in Suzhou should take more photos and post and repost more online in order to sensationalize things. Wu Gan and Ge Jueping15 also discussed raising funds for the Fan Mugen case in order to deal with attorney fees and food and lodging expenses for those going to Suzhou to express solidarity.

4. Testimony of witness Fan Yonghai (Fan Mugen's son) proved: He met Wu Gan through Ge Jueping. On January 19, 2014, when he was attending a seminar on the Fan Mugen case in Beijing, he saw Wu Gan speaking at the meeting. Before the trial in the disturbing the peace case began, Wu Gan set up an online donation for his father. The donations were mainly used for the food and lodging of the people who came to Suzhou to express solidarity.

5. The Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou, Jiangsu's (2014) Su Intermediate Criminal First Instance No. 73 criminal and civil ruling and the High People's Court of Jiangsu's (2015) Su Criminal First Final No. 155 criminal and civil ruling provided by the Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou, Jiangsu proved: Fan Mugen was sentenced for the crime of intentional assault, as well as the circumstances of the relevant case status, hearing times, and other trial work.

6. The Public Security Bureau of Binhai New District, Tianjin's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Jin Bin Public (Net Security) Surveillance (2015) No. 001 remote crime scene investigation work record proved: Based on a remote surveillance investigation, an article was found in the blog of Zhou Hongling, a participant of the "Fan Mugen Case Seminar," which recorded the speeches of the participants at the "Fan Mugen Case Seminar" held from 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm on January 19, 2014. Among them, part of Wu Gan's speech was: "The system has not changed. It's useless to speak to him... this system will never end, it will prey upon people forever, and no one can stop the nature of its plundering... Artists, scholars and lawyers will all intervene, and make this matter more significant. . .; it is necessary to break the cycle. . . to cross over, collaborate, and unite with one another, constantly draining their resources. . ."

7. The Public Security Bureau of Tianjin's Electronic Evidence Forensic Analysis Center's Jin Public (Net) Inspection (2016) No. 058 electronic data investigation work record and the Jin Public (Net) Surveillance (2016) No. 21 remote crime scene investigation record proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Weibo data related to Wu Gan's Sina Weibo accounts with the pseudonyms "Happy Love Sunshine Charity" (UID:2345898410) and historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan) collected historical microblogs and tweets posted by Wu Gan related to the Suzhou Fan Mugen case, the primary content of which was Wu Gan "|expressing solidarity" with Fan Mugen and others, encouraging others to go to Suzhou for illegal gatherings, conducting fundraising for Fan Mugen, and slandering the State regime as "profiteering and plundering citizens' property."

8. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: After the Fan Mugen case occurred, it attracted widespread social commentary. He published some comments and forwarded some comments from Internet users with similar views. In January 2014, he was invited to participate in a seminar on the Fan Mugen case. At the meeting, he appealed to "Internet users," "lawyer circles" and "petitioner circles" to help each other, leverage each other, communicate information in a timely manner, and form a joint force so that more people would become aware of the dark side of the judicial system and put pressure on judicial authorities. On the Internet, he learned that the Fan Mugen case was about to be heard, and he forwarded the news so that more Internet users would pay attention to the case and that the best thing to do would be to go to the local court to express solidarity at the scene. He initiated online fundraising for Fan Mugen in his name. A fundraising proposal was published, and the words in the proposal were written by him. After the trial began, he forwarded pictures of local people performing expressions of solidarity outside the court, with the purpose of calling on Internet users to pay attention to the case online and offline in order to put pressure on judiciary.

XI. Sensationalizing the Li Jie Extortion Case

In August 2013, Li Jie was apprehended by the public security agency in Mancheng County (now Mancheng District), Baoding, Hebei on suspicion of committing extortion committed. In May 2014, Li Jie's family retained the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm to represent them in the case. In October 2015, Li Jie was sentenced by the People's Court Mancheng for committing the crime of extortion. During the trial period, defendant Wu Gan was instructed by Zhou Shifeng to sensationalize the case. Wu Gan fabricated a post saying that the Baoding Political Legal Committee had manufactured an unjust case to build up its image, and he published it on the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm Weibo and his personal Sina Weibo and Twitter accounts from March 10 to 14, 2015, discrediting and smearing the local Party committee and judiciary, and inciting people who did not know the truth to become dissatisfied with the State's judicial system.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. Testimony of witness Li Ping (Li Jie's wife) proved: Li Jie was taken into criminal detention by the Public Security Bureau of Mancheng on suspicion of extortion, and Li Jie's brother-in-law found Zhou Shifeng and Huang Liqun to work on defending Li Jie's innocence.

2. Testimony of witness Zhou Shifeng proved: Li Jie's family members came to the Fengrui Law Firm to retain him to defend Li Jie's suspected criminal case, and he agreed. Later Wu Gan also participated in the case, and he twice instructed Wu Gan to sensationalize Li Jie's case by publishing microblogs, and Wu Gan then posted and distributed photos on Weibo and WeChat. He also instructed Huang Liqun to report false situations to relevant departments. Li Jie's family sent reports written by Huang Liqun to many departments.

3. The People's Court of Mancheng provided the court's criminal judgments (2014) No. 128 and (2014) No. 245, the Intermediate People's Court of Baoding's (2014) No. 405 and ( 2015) Bao Criminal Final No. 596 criminal rulings which proved: Beijing Fengrui Law Firm's Huang Liqun and others accepted a retainer to defend Li Jie, and the circumstances in which Li Jie's case was handled in accordance with the law.

4. The Public Security Bureau of Tianjin's Electronic Evidence Forensic Analysis Center's Jin Public (Net) Inspection (2016) No. 054 and No. 068 electronic data investigation work records proved: In the Sina Weibo accounts with the pseudonyms "The Beijing Fengrui Law Firm" (UID: 2916377514) and "Happy Love Sunshine Public Welfare" (UID: 2345898410) it was possible to search for historical weibos related to the Hebei Li Jie extortion case. Among these, part of the content posted from March 10 to 14, 2015 called for people to "Pay attention to Mancheng, Baoding, Hebei, where there is a big case of injustice brought about by the leaders of the Political and Legal Committee for the sake of a vanity project."

5. The Public Security Bureau of Tianjin's Electronic Evidence Forensic Analysis Center's Jin Public (Net) Surveillance (2016) No. 021 remote crime scene investigation record proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan) collected tweets related to the Hebei Li Jie case, the content of the tweets was the same as the content posted on Weibo.

6. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: Zhou Shifeng asked him to ask Huang Liqun for materials on Li Jie's case. After sorting it out, he posted it on the Internet. After he got it, he wrote a comment. The main content was to reflect the unjust case manufactured by the Baoding Political and Legal Committee for the vanity project in the Li Jie case. Later, he posted his comments on the Fengrui Law Firm's Weibo and on his personal Weibo.

XII. Sensationalizing the Police Attack Incident at Qing'an Railway Station

On May 2, 2015, Xu Chunhe was killed by civil police in accordance with the law at the Qing'an County Railway Station in Suihua, Heilongjiang (hereinafter referred to as the Qing'an County Railway Station) because he engaged in affrays and assaulted police and seized police equipment. After the incident, defendant Wu Gan contacted others and prepared to go to Qing'an to sensationalize things in the name of providing legal aid to Xu Chunhe's family. After that, Wu Gan published a large number of articles and information that distorted facts on information networks in the name of investigating the "truth" to discredit the public security agency He incited people who did not know the truth to confront and oppose State agencies, and caused a pernicious political influence.

The aforementioned facts are confirmed by the following evidence:

1. Testimony of witness Tian Donghang proved: On May 2, 2015, in Qing'an County Railway Station, police had cuffed a man to a fence. As soon as the police released the man, the man chased the police. The police turned and ran to the police room and closed the door. The man kicked the door from the outside. The police came out of the room with a long stick, and the man snatched the stick. Later, the man dragged an old lady to him, then turned around, grabbed a little girl, and threw them to the ground. The man grabbed the stick and hit the police on the left shoulder. The police raised their gun and shouted "Don't move." At this time, the man raised his stick and hit the police again. The police shot. Then the police shouted "Hurry up and call the police." On May 4, Wu Gan went to Dalian to find him and to investigate the matter, and he said the same thing.

The aforementioned witness testimony regarding how the incident progressed is corroborated by the testimony of witnesses Lü Hongjian and Wang Yunji who were passengers at the scene.

2. Testimony of witness Li Lebin (civil police at the Public Security Bureau of Harbin Railway, Harbin Division, Qing'an Station Precinct) proved: After the attack on the police at the Qing'an County Railway Station, a person named "The Super Vulgar Butcher" published an online post claiming that he had shot a petitioner. He also posted edited video on the Internet, and cut out all the scenes of the man involved attacking him, making it appear he had been hitting the man with a baton. There was also a post that was an audio recording of "The Super Vulgar Butcher" interviewing a witness and some text written by him. Many people followed the posts, which were basically insults claiming they were murderous evil police. Some people wanted to dox16 him and his family members, and people said they would kill his entire family. Every day, there were dozens of harassing calls and harassing text messages, all of which were suspicious and intimidating. He did not dare to take his children out to play, and his wife did not dare to go out.

The impact of this incident on Li Lebin and his family was corroborated by the testimony of Wang Doe, Li Lebin's wife.

3. Testimony of witness Xie Yanyi proved: On May 4, 2015, Wu Gan contacted him and asked him if he had time to act as an attorney in the Xu Chunhe case. After talking on the phone with Xu Chunhe's mother the next day, he decided to go to Qing'an County. After arriving in Harbin, he called Wu Gan, and Wu Gan said that he was going to Dalian to collect evidence. On May 6, he and other lawyers located Xu Chunhe's relatives and asked if they wished to retain them. Later, several people held up placards and held a sit-in in front of the public security agency. Articles such as statements and investigative reports were also jointly published online.

4. Testimony of witness Zhai Yanmin proved: On May 3, 2015, he saw in multiple WeChat groups that Wu Gan published live video post offering a reward. On May 4, he saw Xie Yanyi and other lawyers in the group sensationalize the Qing'an incident in Qing'an County. As the incident was heated up, petitioner said that he was going to express solidarity in Qing'an County. On May 7 or 8, he called to ask Wu Gan if he needed to organize people to express solidarity. Wu Gan said that it was not necessary for the time being, and he wanted to first let the lawyers stir up the incident, and then a large number of petitioners would be needed to sensationalize and express solidarity. If Wu Gan had not posted the reward, the Qing'an incident would not have gotten so heated. Wu Gan and others are in "push" Under the guidance of the idea of "pushing against the wall," Wu Gan and others took the opportunity to recklessly sensationalize matters with the goal of discrediting the image of the public security agency, making the people dissatisfied with the public security agency and distrust the government, triggering opposition between the people and the government, creating conflicts, and even bloodshed, between officials and the people, causing the international community to become involved, and eventually achieving the overthrow of the leadership of the Communist Party.

5. Testimony of witness Yu Yunfeng proved: After the Qing'an incident occurred, Wu Gan investigated the incident and said that the situation at the scene was that the police were beating Xu Chunhe, which was inconsistent with the results announced by China Central Television. Therefore, he believed that China Central Television portraying the matter in a selective manner, so he went to participate in expressing solidarity.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by the testimony of witness Chi Jinchun.

6. The "Work Report on the '5.2' Qing'an Shooting Incident" and "Review of Concluding Opinions Regarding the '5.2' Qing'an Shooting Incident" issued by the Harbin Railways Procuratorate proved: On May 2, 2015, Xu Chunhe was in Qing'an at the entrance of the waiting room of the train station and he was preventing passengers from entering the station for no reason and insulted and hit the police who came to perform their official duties. He kicked at the door of the police duty room. Later, he threw his own infant daughter at the police, snatched a baton and beat the police, and was shot and killed. During this incident, the police performed official duties in accordance with the law, and their use of guns was legal.

7. The Work Explanation produced by the Public Security Bureau of Harbin Railway, Harbin Division, Qing'an Station Precinct proved: Internet user "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (real name Wu Gan) sensationalized the attack on the police at the Qing'an County Railway Station through online postings and other methods, causing Internet users to question the investigative conclusions of the incident and harass Li Lebin by phone and text messages. From May 17 to May 25, 2015, Li Lebin received 96 harassing text messages on his mobile phone.

8.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance (2015) No. 4 remote crime scene investigation record proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan) collected posts and pictures related to the attack on the police at the Qing'an CountyRailway Station, the main content of which was Wu Gan contacting others, intervening to sensationalize the Qing'an County Railway Station police attack in the name of providing legal assistance and investigating the "truth," and publishing articles and information such as "The Butcher (Wu Gan) Qing'an Killing Incident Investigation 2," claiming that the facts that Xu Chunhe grabbed police weapons and threw his daughter were fabricated by Xinhua News Agency and the local government.

Based on Wu Gan's confirmation, the aforementioned related content was drafted and posted by him on the Internet.

9. The Public Security Bureau of Tianjin's Electronic Evidence Forensic Analysis Center's Jin Public (Net) Inspection (2016) No. 190 electronic data investigation work record proved: A search for weibo data related to Wu Gan conducted on the Sina Weibo account with the pseudonym "Happy Love Sunshine Public Welfare" (UID: 2345898410) found 15 historical Weibos related to the Qing'an County Railway Station police attack incident. Of these, the main content of the Weibos posted from May 4 to May 12, 2015 was that Wu Gan contacted relevant individuals in the name of providing legal aid and intervened in the Qing'an County Railway Station police attack incident.

10. The Public Security Bureau of Fujian's Physical Evidence Forensic Center's Min Police Inspection (2015) No. 389 analysis report proved: The chat history between Wu Gan's WeChat account whose Pseudonym is "Butcher (Wu Gan) New Account" and Tian Donghang's WeChat account whose Pseudonym is "Tiandong Bulong Winter Hang" was found on Wu Gan's Samsung mobile phone. The main content was, on May 5th, 2015, Tian Donghang explained to Wu Gan the progression of the incident he witnessed, clearly stating that Xu Chunhe blocked the passengers from entering the station and quarreled with the police. Later, he snatched police batons, assaulted police, and threw a child. The aforementioned contents were signed and confirmed by Wu Gan as being the content of his WeChat chat with Tian Donghang. On May 8, 2015, Tian Donghang clearly informed Wu Gan that the content such as "Xu Chunhe did not throw his daughter" published by Wu Gan was completely false. He was certain he had seen a child be thrown. The witness Tian Donghang confirmed that the aforementioned  WeChat account with the pseudonym "Tian Dongbulong Donghang" is the account he used. After checking the data collected from Wu Gan's Samsung mobile phones and iPad mini, analysis and screening found that Wu Gan forwarded his false statements such as "The local and Xinhua News Agency fabricated the rumor that Xu Chunhe threw his daughter at the police" and "The Butcher (Wu Gan) Qing'an Killing Incident Investigation 2" and other false statements to many people and distributed them in many WeChat groups.

11. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: At the beginning of May 2015, he heard that Xu Chunhezi had attacked police at the Qing'an County Railway Station and contacted the lawyer Xie Yanyi. He prepared to go to Harbin, and published a phone number and email address on the Internet hoping that insiders or witnesses would provide relevant information. On May 5, while on the train to Harbin he contacted an eye witness in Dalian. He went to Dalian to meet this person. The person said that Xu Chunhe had beaten the police and threw a child, and provided live videos and pictures. He took the videos and recorded interviews provided by witness, together with his written comment "Investigation Report 1 Ten Questions" and authorized others to post it on the foreign website Boxun.com. Later he posted a reward of 100,000 yuan on the Internet for the complete video of the Qing'an incident. He also authorized others to post on Boxun.com the "Investigation Report 2" commentary he had written. The content posted on Boxun.com was also personally posted by him on Twitter.

XIII. Sensationalizing Affrays in Front of the High People's Court of Jiangxi

In May 2015, many people gathered and raised placards for many consecutive days in front of the entrance to the High People's Court of Jiangxi (hereinafter referred to as the High Court of Jiangxi). After hearing the news, defendant Wu Gan continuously posted malicious sensationalize on the Internet. On May 18 of the same year, Wu Gan came to the High Court of Jiangxi and insulted Zhang Doe,17 then President of the High Court of Jiangxi. On May 19, Wu Gan placed a placard made to look like a tombstone in front of the High Court of Jiangxi with content that insulted Zhang Doe, and took photos and uploaded them to the Internet to sensationalize matters, discredit the judiciary, and incite hatred of the State judicial system. On the same day, Wu Gan was taken into administrative detention for disrupting the order of the office and publicly insulting others.

The aforementioned facts were substantiated by the following evidence:

1. Testimony of witness Dai Liqun (a judge in the First Court of Case Acceptance at the High Court of Jiangxi) proved: Since March 24, 2015, relatives and lawyers of the parties involved in a case began to petition. On May 14, people began to gather at the entrance of the High Court. They held placards, took photos, shouted slogans, and lit candles at night. This continued until May 25. On May 19th, Wu Gan went to the entrance of the High Court and held up a sign with a portrait of President Zhang Doe and cursed at him, and was detained that day.

The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by the testimony of witnesses Luo Xuan, Zhou Jianwen, and Hu Qing, civil police at the Public Security Bureau of Nanchang's Donghu Division's Dayuan Police Precinct.

2. Testimony of witness Wan Xueyong (Captain of the Security Brigade of the High Court of Jiangxi) proved: In May 2015, a lawyer brought a few people to the entrance of the court to raise placards, erect banners, shout slogans, etc., and some took pictures and uploaded them to the Internet. During that period, Wu Gan placed two placards at the entrance of the court, one with a picture of President Zhang Doe on a tombstone, and another with a portrait of Zhang Doe with a small mustache. He also cursed Zhang Doe.
 
The aforementioned witness testimony was corroborated by the testimony of witnesses Tu Guohua and Chen Ying, security officers at the High Court of Jiangxi.

3. The High Court of Jiangxi's report materials and the Donghu Division's registration forms and Administrative Penalty Decision provided by the Public Security Bureau of Nanchang's Donghu Division's Dayuan Police Precinct proved: On May 18, 2015, Wu Gan yelled in front of the High Court of Jiangxi, insulting the President of the court. On May 19, Wu Gan placed placards in front of the High Court of Jiangxi with content insulting the President of the court, and posted relevant content to the Internet that openly insulted others, and was administratively detained by the Public Security Bureau of Nanchang's Donghu Branch for ten days.

4. Video recordings from in front of the High Court of Jiangxi provided by the Public Security Bureau of Nanchang's Donghu Division's Dayuan Police Precinct proved: Wu Gan insulted the President of the court and placed two placards in affrays in front of the court. One of the placards was in the style of a tombstone with a picture of the President of the court in the middle. The placard read "High Court of Jiangxi President Zhang Doe Name Your Price!" There was a picture of Zhang Doe in the middle.

5.The Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Cyber-Security Defense Detachment's Xia Public (Net) Remote Surveillance (2015) No. 5 remote crime scene investigation record proved: A crime scene investigation examination conducted on historical Twitter data for Wu Gan's Twitter account "The Super Vulgar Butcher" (@tufuwugan) collected eight relevant tweets, and a portion of the content was Wu Gan cursing and insulting the President of the High Court of Jiangxi on May 18, 2015.

6. Defendant Wu Gan's statement: After learning that lawyers gathered in front of the High Court of Jiangxi, he went to the entrance of the High Court of Jiangxi on May 18, 2015 and scolded the President of the High Court of Jiangxi. In the morning of the second case, he went to the advertising shop to make two roll-up placards, with one placard saying "High Court of Jiangxi President Zhang Doe Name Your Price!" and the other billboard showing the head of the President of the High Court of Jiangxi with a Japanese-style toothbrush mustache and some couplets. He also printed some promotional materials as if they were advertising content, and then went to the entrance of the High Court of Jiangxi, and erected the two placards.

In addition, the public prosecution agency also presented the following evidence to the court:

1. The Wu Gan household registration certificate issued by the Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Lianqian Police Precinct proved: Wu Gan's natural identity.

2. The:

    • Public Security Bureau of Fujian's Jurisdiction Designation Decision,
    • Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Siming Precinct's Decision to Open a Case,
    • Ministry of Public Security's "Notice on the Designation of Jurisdiction for Criminal Cases Related to the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm" and Explanation of Circumstances,
    • Public Security Bureau of Tianjin's Jurisdiction Designation Decision,
    • Public Security Bureau of Tianjin's Hexi Division's Decision to Open a Case,
    • Public Security Bureau of Xiamen's Siming Precinct's Notice of Case Transfer;
    • Source of the Case and materials showing the process of how the defendant came into police custody, and
    • Detention warrants, arrest warrants, etc.,

proved: How this case developed, how the case was opened, the compulsory measures taken, and other related information.

3. Records of Collection, Seizure Decisions, and Seizure Lists proved: On May 28, 2015, the Public Security Bureau of Xiamen seized a Samsung brand mobile phone, an iphone4 mobile phone, an iPad mini, a USB flash drive, a "butcher certificate" and other items that Wu Gan was carrying on his person.


All of the foregoing evidence was produced and examined in hearings in this Court, and was obtained by the investigating agency in accordance with legal procedures. The sources and formats were legal, there was no contradictions in the evidence, and it forms a comprehensive framework of proof. It is affirmed by this Court.

As regards the justifications and defense opinions put forward by defendant Wu Gan and his defense counsels, based on the facts and evidence in this case, this Court judges as follows:

1. Regarding the justifications and defense opinions raised by defendant Wu Gan and his defense counsel that Wu Gan was tortured and interrogated to exhaustion in order to extract a confession while he was being held in custody in Beijing; that some interrogation transcripts did not match the actual detention location; that some interrogate personnel did not have investigatory authority and nevertheless participated in the production of interrogation transcripts rendering them invalid, and therefore they apply to exclude all of Wu Gan's statements from July 5, 2015 to January 8, 2016.

An investigation found that the Hexi Detention Center in Tianjin's Proof of Inquisition, Case Opening Registration Form, and Decision to Open a Case, and the Ministry of Public Security's Notice on the Designation of Jurisdiction for Criminal Cases Related to the Beijing Fengrui Law Firm" and Explanation of Circumstances, and other evidence proved that in this case, the Ministry of Public Security organized public security agencies in Beijing, Tianjin, Fujian, Shandong and other places. Wu Gan was held in custody in Fujian, Beijing, Tianjin and other places. The public security agencies in Fujian, Beijing, and Tianjin had the right to investigate in this case. The evidence presented by the public prosecution agency in court can prove that the investigating agency's interrogation personnel and the location of the interrogations were legal, and can rule out the existence of any investigating agency collecting evidence by torture and other illegal means. In summary, defendant Wu Gan's statements that were submitted by the public prosecution agency to the court can be used as evidence to establish an offense in this case. These justifications and defense opinions of the defendant and his defense counsel are not supported by this Court.

2. Regarding the justifications and defense opinions raised by defendant Wu Gan and his defense counsel that the collected subjects of all electronic data in the case was not done by an investigating agency, and there were no formalities observed when the investigating agency entrusted collected electronic data, the collection process was not recorded, the method and means of electronic data collection did not comply with legal regulations, and it was not legal and cannot be used as evidence in the case.

An investigation found that the "Letter of Reply Regarding the 'Wu Gan Disturbing the Peace' Case" and the "Explanatory Response Regarding the 'Wu Gan defamation' Case " produced by the Beijing Weimeng Chuangke Network Technology Co., Ltd., and the Explanation, Weibo registration materials, Weibo posts produced by the Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd., as well as the remote crime scene investigation records, analysis reports, and other evidence proved that the electronic data in the case was transferred from Beijing Weimeng Chuangke Network Technology Co., Ltd. And Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. to investigating agencies in Fujian, Tianjin and other places, and was seized in accordance with the law from original storage media such as Wu Gan's mobile phone and ipad mini, and was obtained through remote crime scene investigation. Public security agencies in Fujian, Tianjin and other places have the right to investigate in this case, and the collection of electronic data in the case was qualified and the procedures were legal. The crime scene investigation, investigation records, and analysis reports all explain the crime scene investigation, inspection, and analysis processes, and the electronic data collection procedures and methods in the case comply with legal regulations and relevant technical specifications.

Regarding the justifications and defense opinions raised by defendant Wu Gan and his defense counsel that some articles and audio content on the Internet presented by the public prosecution agency were not the content originally published by Wu Gan, and it cannot be confirmed that they were published by Wu Gan himself.

An investigation found that not only is there electronic data in the case proving that some of articles and audio content of the lectures were published by Wu Gan through information networks, there is also corroborating witness testimony, audiovisual materials, and Wu Gan's statements. In addition the corresponding articles and audio content have been verified by Wu Gan in the investigation and during the trial, and was confirmed as having been written and published by him on information networks.

Regarding the justifications and defense opinions raised by defendant Wu Gan and his defense counsel that most of the witnesses in the case have a personal interest in, and relationship with, Wu Gan, and there were contradictions in the witness testimony, and all the witness testimony was based on subjective assumptions, and are therefore not probative. Witnesses Zhai Yanmin, Zhou Shifeng, and others may have been subjected to torture to extract a confession, and the corresponding witness testimony cannot be used as the basis to establish an offense in this case.

An investigation found that, in this case the witnesses were participants in specific events. The content of the witness testimony was direct perceptions and objective descriptions of Wu Gan's words and actions and events, not subjective assumptions. Related witness testimony and evidence such as electronic data and audio-visual materials in the case are mutually corroborating. They have objectivity, legitimacy, and relevance, and can be used as the basis to establish an offense in this case; Wu Gan and his defense counsels raised doubts about the legality of the testimony of witnesses Zhou Shifeng, Zhai Yanmin, and others, but provided no materials or clues. These justifications and defense opinions of defendant Wu Gan and his defense counsel cannot be established, and are not accepted by this Court.

3. Regarding the justifications and defense opinions raised by defendant Wu Gan and his defense counsel that the totality of the evidence in the case does not prove that Wu Gan had any subjective criminal intent to subvert state power, or that he objectively carried out criminal acts that subverted the State regime. There were reasons why Wu Gan participated in the twelve cases, and all the content posted on the Internet was factual. In the specific cases where Wu Gan participated, some participants were either not criminally punished or were convicted of other offense. There is no legal basis for Wu Gan to be charged for the crime of subversion of state power. Wu Gan's statements on the Internet such as the "Three Great Classics" and attracting people's attention and sensationalizing and other actions were all legitimate exercises of citizens' rights granted by the Constitution, and they neither targeted the State regime nor caused the result of subversion of state power. Therefore, Wu Gan's actions do not constitute a crime of subversion of state power.

An investigation found that, based on the provisions of criminal law, the crime of subversion of state power refers to an actor who organizes, plots, and carries out actions that subvert state power and overthrows the socialist order. The criminal element of the crime does not require the occurrence of any actual harmful consequences of subversion of state power and the overthrow of the socialist order. Any attempt to subvert state power and overthrow the socialist system by various means, regardless of the success or failure, constitutes that crime.

The evidence in this case proved that over a long period of time Wu Gan used information networks to advocate using the concept of "pushing against the wall" to subvert state power and to carry out attacks and defamation against China's State regime and socialist system. During that time, Wu Gan summarized his practice of sensationalizing hot-button cases and published the "Three Great Treasures," which focused on attacking the State's judicial and petitioning systems, and on teaching methods and means to confront and oppose the State regime. In the "Three Great Classics," Wu Gan advocated the use of sensationalizing affrays online and offline and other methods to insult and belittle State agencies and their staff, in order to attack, confront, and oppose the State regime. Wu Gan's "Three Great Classics," posts, and remarks published in interviews with foreign media on information networks are sufficient to prove his subjective criminal intent to commit the crime of subversion of state power. Wu Gan also admitted in court that he had the idea to subvert state power. Under this subjective and intentional suasion, Wu Gan colluded with others and successively sensationalized twelve hot-button incidents, confronting and opposing the State regime, and attacking the national system established by the Constitution. This comprises the constituent elements of the crime of subversion of state power.

China's Constitution grants citizens freedom of speech and the right to criticize, suggest, and bring suit against State agencies and their staff. At the same time, it stipulates that citizens shall not harm the national, social, or collective interests and other legal freedoms of citizens when exercising their rights and freedoms. Wu Gan published articles and statements such as "Three Great Classics" on information networks that sensationalized hot-button case incidents, took advantage of issues to amplify contradictions, and fabricated rumors and distorted facts. This not only seriously damaged the reputation of others, it also seriously disrupted social order and seriously jeopardized national security. What purported to be reflecting complaints and demands was in reality subversion of state power that exceeded the legal limit of the legitimate exercise of rights and freedoms, and constitutes the commission of an offense under relevant provisions of the criminal law.

At the same time, although they have committed similar acts, the subject, subjective intention, and the degree of social harm caused is different, and constitutes different nature and circumstances. It cannot be concluded that Wu Gan's behavior does not constitute subversion of state power crime because people involved in the same case were not criminally punished or were punished for another offense. In summary, the justifications and defense opinions of defendant Wu Gan and his defense counsel cannot be established, and are not accepted by this Court.

This Court finds defendant Wu Gan did, with the goal of subverting state power and overthrowing the socialist order, use methods such as disseminating speech that subverted state power and sensationalizing hot-button incidents on information networks to attack the State regime and the national system established by the Constitution, thereby seriously jeopardizing national security and social stability. His actions constitute the crime of subversion of state power. The facts underlying the public prosecution agency's charge that Wu Gan committed the crime of subversion of state power are clear and the evidence is reliable and copious, and the charged offense is established.

Wu Gan's criminal behavior was deliberate, the circumstances were pernicious, the social harm was great, and the subjective malice was deep, and it should be severely punished in accordance with the law. The period of time during which Wu Gan was held in administrative detention for the facts underlying this case shall be deducted from his criminal sentence in accordance with the law. Penalty period. According to the facts, nature, plot and degree of harm to society of Wu Gan's crime, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 105(1), 61, 56(1), 54, 55(1), and 58 of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China," the judgment is as follows:

Defendant Wu Gan committed the crime of subversion of state power and is sentenced to a fixed term imprisonment of eight years and five 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 May 19, 2015 to May 18, 2023.)

If any party 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 Tianjin. A written appeal should be submitted with one original and two copies of the appeal brief.

Chief Adjudicator        Cai Shuying
Adjudicator            Lin Kun
Acting Adjudicator        Liu Yi

December 21, 2017

Clerk                Li Zhanqiang


天津市第二中级人民法院

刑事判决书

(2016)津02刑初146号


公诉机关天津市人民检察院第二分院。

被告人吴淦,男,汉族,xxxx出生于xxxx,公民身份证号码xxxx北京锋锐律师事务所行政人员,xxxxx2015年5月27日因涉嫌犯寻衅滋事罪、诽谤罪被刑事拘留,同年7月3日因涉嫌犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪、诽谤罪被逮捕。现羁押于天津市第二看守所。
辩护人葛永喜,广东安国律师事务所律师。

辩护人燕薪,北京来硕律师事务所律师。

天津市人民检察院第二分院以津检二分院公诉刑诉〔2016〕10001号起诉书指控被告人吴淦犯颠覆国家政权罪,于2016年12月23日向本院提起公诉。本院根据最高人民法院指定管辖决定,于同年12月30日立案受理,并依法组成合议庭,于2017年8月7日至8日召开庭前会议,8月14日依法不公开开庭进行了审理。天津市人民检察院第二分院指派检察员宫宁、代理检察员盛国文、曹纪元出庭支持公诉,被告人吴淦及其辩护人葛永喜、燕薪到庭参加诉讼。现已审理终结。


天津市人民检察院第二分院指控:

被告人吴淦长期受反华势力渗透影响,逐渐形成了推翻国家现行政治制度和司法制度的思想。2010年以来,吴淦长期利用互联网发表颠覆国家政权的言论,煽动不明真相的一些人对抗国家政权;在互联网上发表“杀猪宝典”“喝茶宝典”“被拆迁征地户维权宝典”等文章,攻击国家政权机关;接受境外媒体采访、在互联网上发布音频讲座,宣扬“推墙”思想,攻击社会主义制度;通过在公共场所非法聚集滋事等方式,实施颠覆国家政权的犯罪活动。2014年10月,吴淦加入周世锋(利用律师事务所为平台从事颠覆国家政权活动,已判刑)为主任的北京锋锐律师事务所,与周世锋、翟岩民(长期非法组织访民闹访滋事从事颠覆国家政权活动,已判刑)、李和平(利用境外某非政府组织资金从事颠覆国家政权活动,另案处理)等人相互勾连,进一步强化了颠覆国家政权的思想,专门炒作热点案件、事件,实施一系列颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的犯罪活动,严重危害国家安全和社会稳定。具体事实如下:

1.2010年4月,福建省福州市马尾区人民法院依法审理一起诬告陷害案件。案件审理期间,被告人吴淦在互联网上恶意炒作,煽动他人到法院聚集滋事,对抗国家司法机关。庭审当曰,吴淦伙同他人在法院门前采用拉挂横幅、呼喊口号、现场录像上传互联网等方式,严重影响人民法院依法审理案件,抹黑司法机关形象,在境内外造成恶劣的政治影响。

2.2012年4月,被告人吴淦介入福建省福州市晋安区一起拆迁补偿纠纷。同年4月至8月间,吴淦先后组织多人在福州市城乡建设委员会门前拉横幅、搭帐篷,并在拆迁房屋处张贴标语,在互联网上对晋安区区长进行侮辱、谩骂,严重损害政府及国家工作人员的形象,挑起不明真相的一些人对抗政府。

3.2012年9月,福建省福清市公安局依法立案侦查一起职务侵占案件。案件侦查期间,被告人吴淦到福清市公安局门前举牌滋事,并在互联网上多次对公安局长及办案民警肆意侮辱、谩骂,污蔑该局因公粞牲的烈士系“黑社会保护伞”,严重损害公安机关及人民警察形象,挑起不明真相的一些人对国家政权机关的仇视。

4.2014年3月22日,黑龙江省建三江农垦公安局依法对扰乱社会秩序的相关人员行政拘留。被告人吴淦伙同他人组织“建三江公民声援营救团”,在互联网上发表《为公民声援营救募款倡议书》,并担任募款联系人及监督审核人,鼓动他人到建三江非法聚集滋事。随后,部分律师、访民在建三江农垦公安局及七星拘留所门前非法聚集、静坐示威、呼喊口号、拉挂横幅、在互联网上恶意炒作,诋毁、攻击国家政权机关。吴淦继续在互联网上公布民警个人信息、号召网络“人肉搜索”、发布“通缉悬赏令”,并对公安民警进行侮辱、谩骂,煽动对抗国家政权,在境内外造成恶劣的政治影响。

5.2014年5月,湖南省怀化市中级人民法院依法审理一起聚众扰乱社会秩序案件。案件审理期间,被告人吴淦伙同李和平等人一同到怀化市麻阳县预谋炒作该案。同年5月20日至21日,吴淦先后在麻阳县委县政府门前举牌,到怀化市人民检察院递交控告信,污蔑、诽谤麻阳县委书记,后在互联网上持续恶意炒作,挑起不明真相的一些人对中国特色社会主义制度不满。

6.2014年5月,河南省郑州市公安局依法对扰乱公共场所秩序的相关人员立案侦查。被告人吴淦伙同翟岩民等人策划对该案件进行炒作,并在互联网上多次发布募款倡议组织“声援”。同年7月,部分律师、访民在郑州市第三看守所门前非法聚集、绝食静坐、拉挂横幅、呼喊口号,无理要求释放在押人员,并在互联网上恶意炒作,诋毁、攻击国家政权机关。期间,吴淦在互联网上发布“嘉奖令”“通缉令”,并在看守所门前借助表演“行为艺术”,对公安局长进行侮辱、诋毁,鼓动不明真相的一些人仇视国家政权机关,在境内外造成恶劣的政治影响。

7.2014年9月,北京市昌平区司法局就一起行政处罚案件召开听证会。被告人吴淦在互联网上鼓动他人前往听证会现场非法聚集,并在现场手持诋毁司法局和律师协会的标语,谩骂执勤民警,伙同他人呼喊口号、堵门滋事,致使现场秩序严重混乱。在得知有关人员被公安机关行政拘留后,吴淦在互联网上发布大量配有侮辱公安民警图片的微博继续恶意炒作,诋毁、攻击国家政权机关。

8.2014年12月,北京锋锐律师事务所代理一起民事申诉案件,该案已经法院调解结案。被告人吴淦受周世锋指使,与谢远东(另案处理)一同前往云南省大理白族自治州炒作该案。2015年1月7日至12日,吴淦通过在州人民政府、州人民检察院、中级人民法院等地,张贴大字报,驾驶贴有大字报的车辆在法院内外滋事等方式,攻击司法机关,抹黑司法制度,并通过互联网恶意炒作,企图挑起不明真相的一些人仇视中国特色社会主义司法制度。

9.2013年12月3曰,江苏省苏州市虎丘区发生一起因拆迁导致两人死亡的故意伤害案件。2014年1月,被告人吴淦在北京参加“苏州城镇化与拆迁研讨会”,针对该案发表诋毁、攻击我国国家制度的言论,煽动仇视社会主义制度。2015年1月至2月,吴淦得知该案及关联案件即将开庭,在互联网上积极组织募款,恶意炒作,煽动不明真相的一些人到苏州市非法聚集滋事,对抗政府。

10.2015年3月,河北省保定市满城区人民法院依法审理北京锋锐律师事务所代理的一起敲诈勒索案件.案件审理期间,被告人吴淦受周世锋指使,编造“保定市委政法委领导为搞形象工程整出冤案”等谣言,在互联网上恶意炒作,挑起不明真相的一些人对中国特色社会主义司法体制的不满。

11.2015年5月2日,黑龙江省庆安县火车站候车室一袭警人员被执勤民警当场击毙。事件发生后,被告人吴淦在互联网上发表大量歪曲事实真相的微博,捏造袭警人员系访民,民警开枪系截访的谣言,煽动他人到庆安县非法聚集炒作。后以在互联网上发布“庆安事件调查报告”的方式散布虚假言论,鼓动不明真相的群众对抗归家政权机关。

12.2015年5月,江西省髙级人民法院依法审理一起刑事申诉案件。同年5月18日至19日,被告人吴淦在互联网上恶意炒作,后在法院门前对该院院长高声辱骂并摆设“灵堂“,抹黑司法机关形象,诋毁、攻击国家司法制度。
2015年5月27日,被告人吴淦被抓获归案。

就上述指控,公诉机关当庭宣读和出示了刑事判决书、行政处罚决定书等书证,证人翟岩民、谢远东等的证言,搜查、检查、辨认笔录,视听资料、电子数据,被告人吴淦的供述等证据,认为吴淦组织、策划、实施颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度,其行为触犯了《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百零五条第一款的规定,犯罪事实清楚,证据确实、充分,应当以颠覆国家政权罪追究其刑事责任。依据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第一百七十二条的规定,提请本院依法判处。

被告人吴淦承认实施了公诉机关指控的事实,但其及其辩护人对公诉机关的指控提出以下辩解和辩护意见:

1.吴淦在北京羁押期间遭受刑讯逼供、疲劳讯问;部分讯问笔录中记载的关押地点与实际关押地点不符;部分讯问人员没有侦查权限,参与制作的讯问笔录没有效力,故申请排除吴淦自2015年7月5日至2016年1月8日的所有供述。

2.在案所有电子数据的提取主体并非本案侦查机关,也没有侦查机关委托提取电子数据的手续,提取过程没有记录,电子数据收集的方式、方法不符合法律规定,不具有合法性,不能作为定案证据使用;公诉机关出示的网络上的部分文章和音频并非吴淦发布的原始内容,且不能确认是吴淦本人发布;在案大部分证人与吴淦有利害关系,且证言之间相互矛盾,均系主观臆断,故不具有证明力;证人翟岩民、周世锋等人可能遭受刑讯逼供,相应证言不能作为定案根据。

3.在案所有证据不能证明吴淦主观上具有颠覆国家政权的犯罪故意,客观上实施了颠覆国家政权的犯罪行为;吴淦参与十二起案事件均事出有因,在网络上发布的内容均是事实,且在吴淦参与的具体案事件中,部分参与者或者未被刑事处罚、或者被以其他罪名定罪处罚,对吴淦以颠覆国家政权罪进行指控没有法律依据;吴淦在网络上发表“三大宝典”等言论和实施围观、炒作等行为均是公民行使宪法賦予的正当权利,既未针对国家政权,也未造成国家政权被颠覆的结果,故吴淦的行为不构成颠覆国家政权罪。

经审理查明:

被告人吴淦因对国家现行政治制度不满,逐渐产生颠覆国家政权的思想。其后,吴淦长期利用信息网络散布大量言论,攻击国家政权和宪法确立的国家制度,宣扬用以颠覆国家政权的“推墙”思想;勾结一些具有颠覆国家政权思想的非法宗教活动人员、职业访民、少数律师和其他人员,以“维权”、表演“行为艺术”等为幌子,采取在公共场所非法聚集、起哄闹事,在信息网络上辱骂他人,散布虚假信息等方式,炒作多起热点案事件,抹黑国家机关,攻击宪法确立的国家制度,实施了一系列颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的犯罪活动,严重危害国家安全和社会稳定。具体事实如下:

一、利用信息网络攻击国家政权和社会主义制度

2010年以来,被告人吴淦利用推特、微博、微信等网络社交工具,持续发布大量帖文和讲座音频,攻击国家政权和社会主义制度。期间,吴淦撰写“三大宝典”等文章,并接受境外媒体采访,污蔑国家政治制度,宣扬用以颠覆国家政权的“推墙”思想,煽动对抗国家政权。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.北京微梦创科网络技术有限公司出具的《关于“吴淦寻衅滋事”案的调证函复》《关于“吴淦诽谤”案的说明函复》、电子数据光盘等证明:公安机关自该公司调取昵称为“杀猪的家伙”(UID:2782156390)、“快乐爱阳光公益”(UID:2345898410)、“超级低俗tufu-eoE”(UID:3525846081)、“超级低俗屠fu”(UID:3735687154)等与吴淦相关的新浪微博账号注册信息、微博内容及阅读数、转发量、评论情况。

2.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)电检〔2015〕10号电子数据检查笔录证明:经对与吴淦相关的新浪微博数据进行检查,发现自2012年6月至2015年1月发布的多条贴文,其中,昵称为“超级低俗tufu_eoE“的账号发布帖文的部分内容为:”……每个人都可以以自己的方式推墙……“”在面对极权的时候,我们唯一能做的就市推墙和批评……“

3.厦门市公安局思明分局夏公思(莲前)调证字〔2015〕0202号调取证据通知书、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司出具的说明、微博注册资料、微博发文内容等证明:公安机关自该公司调取shoujil354373175(昵称:屠博导)、sunshinengo(昵称:屠夫爱杀猪)等与吴淦相关的腾讯微博账号注册信息及发布的多条帖文,其中,昵称为“屠夫爱杀猪”的账号发布帖文的部分内容为:“政治立场,推墙态度必须清晰,有些看似是同道,其实起到助纣为虐的作用,所以我最反感乱喊团结。”

4.厦门市公安局思明分局厦公思(莲前)调证字〔2015〕00019号调取证据通知书、调取证据清单及电子数据光盘证明:公安机关自深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司调取吴淦微信朋友圈数据及微博号2302974886所有微博的内容和评论。

5.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)电检〔2015〕11号电子数据检查笔录证明:经对吴淦微信朋友圈数据进行检查,在账号为wxid_jah3jvte134u12(昵称“超级低俗屠夫现用”)的微信朋友圈中,发现多条贴文,其中部分内容为:“推墙不是一天两天的事,我们不但要以快乐、健康的心态和它们折腾,还有把自己身体养好,要比它们长寿,必须要等到亲手埋葬它们那天…”

6.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)远勘〔2015〕3号远程勘验笔录证明:经对吴淦推特账号超级低俗屠夫(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据进行勘验检查,发现自2011年10月至2014年10月发布的多条帖文,其中部分内容为:“这个政权全世界都不喜欢,在这种政权下,能有好素质吗?”

经吴淦确认,上述内容系其发布于互联网。

7.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)远勘〔2014〕4号远程勘验笔录证明:经勘验检查,在境外某电台网站找到题为“中国大陆官方和民间对香港[占中]的回应”节目,网页刊明该节目播出时间:2014-10-0900:35:00,内容为访大陆网络活跃人士[屠夫吴淦],其中部分音频内容为宣称“只要大陆集权一天在,他给世界不会带来和平和文明,只会带来野蛮、污染跟灾难”。

上述音频的文字整理材料经吴淦确认,系其接受采访时所讲内容。

8.厦门市公安局思明分局厦公思(莲前)调证字〔2015〕00018号调取证据通知书、调取证据清单及《荔支FM发现一剑私人客厅讲座“中国人权和社会问题现状”音频的电子数据检查说明》证明:自广州荔支网络技术有限公司调取在2015年4月13日由sissi青菜发布的发现一剑私人客厅讲座“中国人权和社会问题现状一(主讲:屠夫,主持:三脚猫)”的音频数及收听、转发、评论等情况。该音频部分内容为:“所有的问题归根结底是制度的问题、政治制度的问题……所以说任何善意的建议,或者有益于他们延长寿命的我们都不去做,而是要鼓励他更烂,挖墙、掺沙、掺水,一个船快沉了,你给他再凿几下……在做公民运动,在做推墙的时候没钱是万万不能的……所以我每次做案子都是先募,有钱了就可以做。”

上述音频的文字整理材料经吴淦确认,系其所做的讲座内容。

9.福建省公安厅物证鉴定中心闽公鉴〔2015〕389号检验报告、厦门市公安局思明分局出具的《iPhone4上提取到吴淦在微信群“民主红包大业”发布讲座音频的电子数据检查说明》证明:在吴淦iPhone4手机上发现微信号wxid_minhchrrq5qz22(屠第六个号)于2015年4月14日用播放音频的方式在微信群“773207982@chatroom-民主红包大业”里开展讲座,部分内容为:“大家如果有推墙的意识可以用互联网去传播真相,结交更多志同道合的朋友。”

10.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)远勘〔2015〕2号远程勘验笔录证明:经勘验检查发现,吴淦多次使用其推特账号超级低俗屠夫(@tufuwugan)发布有关“宝典”内容的文章和信息,并向社交平台google+上传“宝典”资料,其制作的“宝典”被境外媒体、网站、网民博客转载或报导。

其中,吴淦在其推特账号发布的部分内容为:“屠夫三宝典:1:访民杀猪宝典。2:喝茶宝典。3:抗违法拆迁征地宝典。都已推出。过阵子没事再好好写个非正常国家公民折腾宝典,普及如何战胜恐惧,如何和流氓折腾,如何增加它们成本,如何携手一起让魔鬼死去!”

吴淦向社交平台google上传《超级低俗屠夫(吴淦)宝典之一:访民杀猪宝典》,该“宝典”的部分内容为:“在我们国家,司法不公,政法委、纪检一手遮天……信访制度是国家用来骗人民和制衡地方政府的一种工具……司法不公的根源在于这制度,这种制度不改,法律都是摆设……在这种制度下,你千万不要相信法律,好人在这种恶制度下也会变坏……建议采取最原始的方式来诉求……针对具体人才是最有效的方式;网上网下可以采取各种形式的诉求,各种行为艺术、恶搞、举报、控告等……”

吴淦向社交平台google+上传《超级低俗屠夫(吴淦)宝典之二:喝茶宝典》,该“宝典”的部分内容为:“在没有民主自由的国度,喝茶是想成为一个真正公民的必经之路,喝茶通常指因为你的言论或你的公民行动被警察、国安约谈......每个人都不怕喝茶了,都把喝茶当成一种荣光,这社会就进步了。”

atAspirin刊载《超级低俗屠夫<杀猪宝典>》,该“宝典”的部分内容为:“中国法律是为流氓和权贵服务的;个人诉求的时候……最好是针对部门负责人……方式很多,比如网络揭发,揭他伤疤,挖他身边、家属等丑事和细数他在位时罪状,把他上几任的恶行全往他身上贴。”

“往事并不如烟”转载《被拆迁征地户维权宝典》,该“宝典”的部分内容为:“目前在没有法治的国度,这种手册也只能作为一种参考……政府是保护强者施暴,不会保护被拆迁征地者的利益和人身安全……法律在拆迁征地过程中如同摆设和狗屎,公检法基本形同虛设。“

经吴淦确认,上述内容系其编写并发布于互联网。

11.福建省公安厅物证鉴定中心闽公鉴〔2015〕389号检验报告证明:在吴淦iPhone4手机中发现微信账号wxid_minhchrrq5qz22(屠夫第六个号)在群聊及朋友圈发布与“宝典”有关的信息,鼓动他人使用“宝典”中的方法进行“推墙”。

12.被告人吴淦的供述:其认为社会矛盾的根源在于现行政治体制和司法体制。其理想的状态是通过对一系列案事件的介入发声,唤醒“公民”成为将来“社会转型”的重要力量,使这样的人群不断壮大,从而进一步以“街头申诉”的方式倒逼现在的政府“和平转型”。现在积极关注案事件的“律师圈”“访民圈”“民运圈”“网民圈”都抱有这样的共识,因此才能在某一个事件发生后,各个圈子团结起来介入这些事件,这也是倒逼的一种体现。其推特网名“超级低俗屠夫”,账号:Stufuwugan;新浪网名“快乐爱阳光公益”;G+账号“吴淦(屠夫)”;微信账号包括“cjdstf”等;新浪微博和腾讯微博账号分别是“超级低俗屠夫”“光头杀猪佬”“爱杀猪的家伙”等。大概在2011年上半年,其编写“杀猪宝典”,分为“维权杀猪宝典”和“访民杀猪宝典”两部分。2012年,其把与警察打交道的经验写成“喝茶宝典拆迁宝典”是在此之后写的。其反对现有体制,从没有试图隐瞒自己的思想。

二、炒作范燕琼等人诽谤案件

2010年4月,范燕琼等人因在互联网上诽谤他人,被福建省福州市马尾区人民法院(以下简称马尾法院)依法判处刑罚。案件审理期间,被告人吴淦在其推特账号持续发布诬蔑福州司法系统涉黑等内容的帖文,抹黑司法机关并煽动他人前往马尾法院聚集滋事。同年4月16日,该案开庭审理,吴淦伙同多人在马尾法院门前以喊口号、打横幅等方式起哄闹事,并将现场情况上传互联网进行炒作,煽动不明真相的人对国家司法体制的不满。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.证人王宝用(福州市马尾区公安局民警)的证言及辨认笔录证明:2010年,其参加了两次有关范燕琼等人诽谤案庭审现场秩序的维护。4月份,来了一百多人,场面比前一次更大。很多人胸前挂着“三网民”头像的牌子,身上绑着黄丝带,高举横幅、喊口号。其中有一个光头、体型较胖的人在现场很活跃,带头喊口号,不断拍照录像,还不时取出电脑操作。经其辨认,该人为吴淦。

上述证言有马尾区公安局罗星派出所民警陈其兴和保安郑智勇、邱希贵的证言及辨认笔录予以佐证。

2.证人孙静海的证言及辨认笔录证明:范燕琼等人诽谤案开庭当天,其在现场,看到马尾法院门口聚集了好多人,有几个组织者在现场带头喊口号、拉横幅、唱歌。经其辨认,其中一个组织者为吴淦。

上述证言有在现场的刘卫滔的证言及辨认笔录予以佐证。

3.证人吴瑞峰的证言证明:其是范燕琼等人诽谤案的主审法官,在2010年4月16日的庭审过程中,能很清晰地听到法院外有聚集人员喊口号。开庭后不久,其收到一张吴淦写的诋毁马尾法院形象的“奖状”。

上述证言有在案书证“奖状”予以佐证。

4.马尾法院提供的该院开庭公告、(2009)马刑初字第154号刑事判决书和福州市中级人民法院(2010)榕刑终字第502号刑事裁定书证明:范燕琼、游精佑、吴华英排谤案开庭时间及三人被判刑情况。

5.福州市马尾区公安局出具的《关于“6.27”案件庭审处置工作的情况说明》证明:2010年4月16日8时30分,八十多人聚集在马尾法院门口、声称要对范燕琼、游精佑、吴华英进行“声援主要组织者有吴淦他们的行为引发马尾法院外围二百余名群众围观,秩序混乱,影响较大。

6.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)远勘〔2014〕3号远程勘验笔录证明:经勘验检查,发现吴淦等人在马尾法院滋事的7个视频。

7.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)远勘〔2015〕1号远程勘验笔录证明:经对吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫”(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据进行勘验检查,从中提取到吴淦自2010年2月初发布的鼓动他人前往福州炒作范燕琼等人诽谤案,以及诬蔑福州司法系统涉黑等内容的推文及链接。

8.被告人吴淦的供述:2010年2月,其开始介入范燕琼等人诽谤案,并到福州声援。4月16日,该案开庭,其与到场人员用喊口号、拉横幅等方式进行声援,还对现场情况进行网络直播。现场有人在手臂上缠黄丝带,播放哀乐,以此讽刺当地司法机关。

三、炒作福州市晋安区拆迁补偿事件

2012年4月,被告人吴淦介入福建省福州市晋安区一起拆迁补偿事件。同年4月至9月间,吴淦在待拆迁房屋处张贴横幅,借表演“行为艺术”侮辱时任晋安区区长郑某某,后又组织人员到福州市城乡建设委员会门前拉横幅、搭帐篷。同时,吴淦将上述表演“行为艺术”的照片上传至互联网,并发布帖文,抹黑国家机关及其工作人员的形象,煽动不明真相的人对抗国家政权。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.证人何曦(晋安区人民政府工作人员)的证言及辨认笔录证明:2012年8月26日,网名为“杀猪的家伙”的人在新浪微博发布了四张图片,其中有三张图片均将晋安区区长郑某某的头像贴在一个女性塑料裸体模特的头上,该模特的身上写有侮辱性文字,有两名男子分别在模特旁边拍照,其中一名男子是该微博博主(吴淦),该三张图片中的民房墙体上贴有写着“公民私有财产保护福州观察点(超级低俗屠夫工作室)”内容的纸张。还有一张图片上有两名男子拉着一条横幅,上面写着“强烈抗议福州市城乡建设委员会行政不作为,漠视人民生命财产安全,和违法流氓施工企业狼狈为奸”等字样。其到派出所报案。

上述证言有郑某某的证言及福州市公安局晋安分局受案登记表等证据予以佐证。

2.证人陈明宏(晋安区王庄街遒紫阳经济合作社工作人员)的证言证明:晋安区有一户人家为取得更多的征收补偿,做“钉子户”很长时间。吴淦在这家外面设立“公民私有财产保护点”,在大门前摆了一个塑料裸体女模特,将晋安区区长的头像贴在模特头上进行拍照,还组织这家人在福州市建委门口搭帐篷、静坐。吴淦等人的行为引来很多群众围观。

上述证言有时任晋安区王庄街道紫阳经济合作社书记李榕俤的证言予以佐证。

3.证人曾勇(福州地源房屋征收工程处工作人员)的证言及辨认笔录证明:2010年4月份开始对晋安区冠城大通及周边地块进行征收工作。吴淦把晋安区区长头像贴在塑料裸体模特头上进行侮辱,还组织征收范围内的一家人和一些网民在福州市建委门口静坐,并拍照后发布到互联网上。

4.福州市住房保障和房产管理局提供的福州市房地产管理局房屋拆迁公告、房屋拆迁许可证、《关于我市房屋征迁逾期未安置情况的汇报》证明:2010年4月15日,福州市房地产管理局批准对冠城大通有限公司及周边地块范围的房屋实施拆迁,拆迀期限自2010年4月15日至2011年4月30日。后拆迁逾期。

5.福州市晋安区人民政府办公室出具的情况说明材料证明:2012年4月,吴淦在待拆房子现场设立“公民财产权保护福州观察点”,表演各种“行为艺术”,包括“与女区长裸模合影”“建委搭帐篷”。上述行为使区政府的形象受到影响。

6.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)电检〔2015〕1号电子数据检查笔录证明:经对与吴淦相关的新浪微博数据进行检查,在昵称为“杀猪的家伙”(UID:2782156390)微博账号中搜索到与晋安区拆迀补偿事件相关的历史微博13条,其中,2012年9月6日发布的部分内容为:“帐篷、灵位、游街道具(到时候会用车顶拉着女区长在福州街上四处展览,让大家看看晋安区它们如何不但不为民服务,还耍流氓侵害百姓)……”

经吴淦确认,上述内容系其发布于互联网。

7.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)远勘〔2015〕1号远程勘验笔录证明:经对吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫”(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据进行勘验检查,从中提取到吴淦发布的包含侮辱时任晋安区区长以及宣称“政府漠视人民财产和生命安全,和流氓狼狈为奸”等内容的推文及链接,并附有吴淦表演“行为艺术”的照片。

经吴淦确认,相关内容系其编写并发布于互联网。

8.被告人吴淦的供述:2012年,其采取以下方式帮助晋安区一拆迁户“维权”:到市建委门口搭帐篷,张贴宣传标语;把晋安区区长头像固定在塑料裸体模特的头部,配上标语,并与之合影,将这些照片上传到推特、微博、微信。在表演上述“行为艺术”之前,其找人写了一张内容为“公民私有财产权保护福州观察点”的大海报,亲自张贴在待拆迁房子外墙上。

四、炒作徐孝顺职务侵占案件

2012年9月,徐孝顺因涉嫌犯职务侵占罪被福建省福清市公安局刑事拘留。案件侦查期间,被告人吴淦到福清市公安局门前举牌滋事。2012年12月至2013年4月,吴淦在其推特及新浪微博账号连续发帖对时任福清市公安局局长林某某侮辱、谩骂,诬蔑因公牺牲的革命烈士林万霖系“黑社会保护伞”,严重损害公安机关和人民警察形象,煽动不明真相的人仇视国家政权。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.福清市公安局经济犯罪侦查大队提供的立案决定书、拘留证、逮捕证、取保候审决定书等证明:徐孝顺因涉嫌职务侵占被福清市公安局立案侦查并被采取强制措施的情况。

2.证人薛爱忠(时任福清市公安局经济犯罪侦查大队副大队长)的证言证明:徐孝顺被刑事拘留期间,吴淦到福清市公安局门口举牌吵闹,要求释放徐孝顺,称经办民警收黑钱。后吴淦又在网上辱骂、恐吁局长林某某。2013年4月间,吴淦在网上说福清市公安局民警、二级英模林万霖烈士是黑帮成员,抹黑公安机关和民警的形象。

3.证人林某某的证言证明:其在担任福清市公安局局长期间,吴淦在互联网上发布大量帖文,对其侮辱、谩骂,还称林万霖烈士是“黑社会保护伞“。

上述证言有福清市公安局民警佘彬、林艳的证言予以佐证。

4.证人吴炜(福清市公安局民警)的证言证明:徐孝顺涉嫌职务侵占案是其经办。2013年3月份,同事打电话说吴淦在公安局门口举牌,纸牌上写着侮辱其的文字。

上述证言有福清市公安局民警魏慧的证言予以佐证。

5.证人黄剑榕(福清市公安局民警)的证言证明:其以前和林万霖是同事。林万霖是在侦查一起案件时遭到歹徒枪杀而英勇牺牲的,后被公安部追认为二级英模。

6.福清市公安局提供的《关于追认林万霖同志为革命烈士的报告》、福清市民政局《关于追认林万霖同志为革命烈士的调查报告》、公安部《关于追授林万霖同志全国公安系统二级英雄模范称号的命令》等证明:福清市公安局民警林万霖同志在侦查一起入室抢劫特大案件时,遭到持枪歹徒袭击,壮烈牺牲。福建省人民政府授予林万霖革命烈士称号。公安部追授林万霖全国公安系统二级英雄模范称号。

7.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)远勘〔2015〕1号远程勘验笔录、厦公(网)电检〔2015〕6号电子数据检査笔录证明:经对吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫”(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据,以及与吴淦相关的昵称为“快乐爱阳光公益”(UID:2345898410)新浪微博账号的历史微博数据进行勘验、检查,从中提取到吴淦发布的侮辱、谩骂福清市公安局局长林某某和诬蔑林万霖烈士是“黑社会保护伞”等内容的推文、链接、历史微博。

经吴淦确认,相关内容系其发布于互联网。

8.被告人吴淦的供述:2012年4月至2013年5月,其因对经办徐孝顺案件的民警不满,就在微博、推特上发布了一些对公安局长进行辱骂、侮辱性质的言论。其与林万霖不认识,在微博和推特上说过林万霖是假英模、黑社会成员、黑社会保护。

五、炒作唐吉田等人行政拘留案件

2014年3月,黑龙江省建三江农垦公安局(以下简称建三江公安局)对扰乱社会秩序的唐吉田等人依法行政拘留,部分人员借机到建三江等地聚集滋事。被告人吴淦获悉后,利用信息网络持续进行炒作,鼓动为现场滋事人员募款,煽动他人前往现场聚集,并发布含有侮辱内容的“通缉悬赏令”,诋毁、贬损人民警察形象,抹黑国家机关,煽动与国家政权对抗。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.建三江公安局出具的行政处罚决定书证明:2014年3月22日,唐吉田等人因扰乱社会秩序被行政拘留;2014年3月30日,翟岩民等人为“声援”唐吉田等人,煽动、策划他人在七星拘留所门前非法集会,被建三江公安局行政拘留。

2.证人翟岩民的证言证明:其在微信群里看到唐吉田等四律师在建三江被抓的帖子,便带人到建三江声援。2014年3月24日,其与向莉等带十多人去建三江公安局,七星拘留所举牌。3月25日,其与王徤等人到七星拘留所,与律师一同打横幅、示威。吴淦在各个群内发布声援建三江律师和募捐的帖子,鼓动“公民”参加声援活动,声援的费用是吴淦发起募集的。律师、“公民”、访民利用微信作为平台联系在一起,有共同的“推墙”思想,每次事件都是律师先挑起事端,第一时间到达现场,“公民”、访民跟进,继续炒作、发酵事件,这是一个固定的炒作模式,目的是想推翻现有法制体系,推翻共产党领导,实现“颜色革命”“和平转型”。

3.证人刘四新的证言证明:唐吉田等人被拘留后,有人专门建了微信群,还组织了“声援团”,提出给去声援、造势的律师、访民募捐经费,捐款的发起人里有吴淦。

4.证人于文波(建三江公安局民警)的证言证明:2014年3月22日,建三江公安局依法对扰乱社会秩序的唐吉田等人行政拘留。此后,大量“维权人士”在七星拘留所门口聚集、呼喊口号。在处理上述事件过程中,其手机、办公电话和家庭固定电话接到大量骚扰电话,基本处于瘫痪状态。建三江公安局局长等也都受到了骚扰。

5.证人刘某某(时任建三江公安局局长)的证言及自书材料证明:2014年3月,建三江公安局依法拘留了一批“维权律师”吴淦制作带有其头像的“通缉悬赏令”在网上发布,并对其进行“人肉搜索”,公布其电话号码,煽动网民打电话、发短信对其进行骚扰,通过网上发帖对其本人辱骂、攻击、恐吓。吴淦的蓄意煽动炒作,造成全国各地“维权人士”到建三江非法聚集示威,严重扰乱了建三江辖区的社会秩序。给省、垦区、建三江管理局各级党委、政法系统声誉造成了极坏的影响。

6.证人刘长河(时任建三江公安局国保大队大队长)的证言证明:吴淦自2014年3月22日开始持续通过腾讯微博、手机短信等发布对其本人辱骂、人身攻击、恐吓的帖文,并在网上征集其家庭住址、家庭情况、孩子就读的学校等信息,公布其电话,鼓动网民用打电话和发短信的方式对其进行骚扰。吴淦的行为不仅对其名誉造成严重损害,也使公安机关执法公信力遭到质疑。

7.证人韩奎(时任建三江公安局七星拘留所所长)的证言证明:七星拘留所收押唐吉田等人后,拘留所门前发生了非法聚集示威事件。七星拘留所的电话以及工作人员的手机被不断骚扰,大体内容是要求释放被收押人员,还有部分电话是进行人身攻击和人身威胁。

上述证言有七星拘留所民警房玉献的证言予以佐证。

8.建三江公安局出具的“3•20”事件的简要情况、“3•20”事件对七星拘留所已造成影响及危害后果的证明材料证明:2014年3月20曰,唐吉田等人到建三江聚集,进行滋扰活动。3月22曰,建三江公安局对上述人员依法行政拘留。此后,陆续有11个省市人员到建三江聚集。部分人员到七星拘留所门前聚集,静坐示威,呼喊口号,打横幅等,并编辑文字、图片在互联网上发布信息,恶意炒作。上述行为使拘留所和毗邻的看守所正常办公秩序受到严重冲击,导致拘留所门前堵塞,办案车辆和工作人员不能正常通行。公安机关依法行政拘留16人。

9.建三江公安局提供的七星拘留所门前视频证明:翟岩民等人在拘留所门前聚集、呼喊口号、持标语照相等。

10.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)电检〔2015〕3号电子数据检查笔录、厦公(网)远勘〔2015〕1号远程勘验笔录、麗公(网)电检〔2015〕12号电子数据检查笔录证明:经对吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫”(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据,以及与吴淦相关的昵称为“快乐爱阳光公益”(UID:2345898410)和“超级低俗屠fu”(UID:3735687154)新浪微博账号的历史微博数据、吴淦微信朋友圈数据进行勘验、检查,提取到吴淦炒作唐吉田等人行政拘留案件的推文、链接、历史微博,以及在微信朋友圈中发布的涉及唐吉田等人行政拘留案件的相关言论,主要内容为“声援”唐吉田等人和现场滋事人员,为现场滋事人员募款,鼓动对公安民警进行“人肉搜索”,发布含有侮辱内容的“通缉悬赏令”等。

经吴淦确认,相关内容系其发布于互联网。

11.被告人吴淦的供述:2014年年初,其从互联网上看见唐吉田等四人被行政拘留,就开始关注这个事件。后来,其起草了募款倡议书在互联网发布,并与刘四新担任监督人及联系人。募款就是为了让更多人去声援,给这些人报销交通食宿费用及其他正常开支。过了十天左右,其在家中制作了“通缉悬赏令”,征集建三江公安局局长的贪腐信息。之后,其多次发布建三江事件的相关信息及其本人对建三江事件的看法,并发布相关民警的联系方式,号召大家给民警打电话骚扰。之所以介入这个事件,是想声援唐吉田等人,谴责政府对他们的迫害。

六、炒作黄雨东等人聚众扰乱社会秩序案件

2015年1月,黄雨东等人因犯聚众扰乱社会秩序罪,被湖南省怀化市中级人民法院依法判处刑罚。案件审理期间,李和平(已判刑)利用某境外组织提供的资金,带领被告人吴淦等人到湖南省怀化市麻阳苗族自治县(以下简称麻阳县)等地对该案进行炒作。2014年5月20曰,吴淦到麻阳县委县政府门前举牌滋事,并拍照上传互联网。此后,吴淦持续在互联网上恶意炒作,歪曲事实,抹黑、丑化国家机关及其工作人员形象,制造舆论煽动仇视国家政权。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.证人赵军(麻阳县人民政府工作人员)的证言及辨认笔录证明:2014年5月的一天上午,有两个人在县政府门口,其中一个较胖的人举着牌子,另外一个人录像。其把二人带到信访接待室,他们待了不到一分钟就拿着牌子跑了。牌子上写的好像是“胡某某书记,屠夫给您送钱来了”。经赵军辨认,吴淦即为举牌滋事的男子。

2.证人杨国新(麻阳县人民政府工作人员)的证言证明:2014年夏天的一天上午,其听到县委大院内有人吵闹,出去看到一名男子举着一个牌子,牌子上写着“胡某某,屠夫给你送钱来了”,旁边还有一名男子给他录像。胡某某是麻阳县委书记。

3.证人李和平的证言证明:2014年5月,其请吴淦去湖南对黄雨东等人的案件进行曝光。吴淦到麻阳县政府门口举写有比较激进文字的牌子,拍照后放到网上炒作。其与吴淦等人的差旅费是从其与某境外组织合作的项目中出的。

4.证人高月的证言证明:其在李和平三元桥办公室工作。在其处理的2014年5月份账目中,有一笔是李和平、吴淦等人到麻阳县办案的费用。这些费用是向境外某机构报销。

5.麻阳县人民法院提供的(2013)麻刑初字第47号刑事判决书和湖南省怀化市中级人民法院(2013)怀中刑一终字第39号、128号刑事裁定书证明:黄雨东等人因犯聚众扰乱社会秩序罪被判刑的情况。

6.天津市公安局电子证据检验鉴定中心津公(网安)勘〔2016〕151号远程勘验笔录证明:经对与吴淦相关的新浪微博数据进行检查,发现昵称为“快乐爱阳光公益”(UID:2345898410)的微博账号持续发布帖文炒作麻阳县黄雨东等人的案件,其中,2014年5月20日发布的图片内容为:吴涂在麻阳县委县政府门前举牌,牌子上写着“胡某某书记屠夫送钱来了”。

7.被告人吴淦的供述:2014年4月,李和平说他正在关注湖南麻阳县的案子,问其是否有时间一起到当地跟进关注,其同意。当月,其与李和平等人到麻阳县,做了一个写有“麻阳县委书记胡某某,屠夫给你送钱来了”的广告牌,然后到县委县政府门前表演“行为艺术”。其举着广告牌,让路人拍照,把照片发布到微博上,想以此给当地政府施压。就像其在“三大宝典”中讲过的,要想解决问题,就要找当地的领导作靶子,找他有没有贪腐等问题。

七、炒作于世文等人寻衅滋事案件

2014年5月,河南省郑州市公安机关对涉嫌犯寻衅滋事罪的于世文等人依法立案侦查,并将于世文等人羁押在郑州市第三看守所。翟岩民获悉后,组织多人到该所聚集滋事。被告人吴淦积极通过信息网络介入炒作,为滋事人员募款。同年7月,吴淦前往郑州市,与翟岩民等人共同为炒作活动出谋划策,并在看守所门前表演“行为艺术”,将相关照片及含有侮辱内容的“嘉奖令”发布到信息网络,谩骂、贬损国家工作人员,攻击国家机关,造成恶劣的政治影响。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.郑州市公安局二里岗分局立案决定书、拘留证等证明:2014年5月26日,郑州市公安局二里岗分局对于世文等人依法立案侦查,次日,对于世文等人刑事拘留,同年7月3日执行逮捕,并羁押于郑州市第三看守所。

2.证人翟岩民的证言证明:其在微信群中看到于世文等人案件的消息,后来看见律师在郑州公安局举牌的消息,就与刘星等人去郑州声援。2014年7月8日左右,声援人员在郑州召开协调会,组织策划声援活动,张俊杰、吴淦、王译等人参加。王译提出此次募款由吴淦发起,吴淦说建三江的事是他做的,这次再做怕被抓。经商议,决定由滕彪作为募捐发起人,林斌为持卡人,刘士辉、袁雪成为监管人,其任现场总协调人。会议还决定以律师被抓为立足点进行炒作,以要求会见为主题拉出横幅,并成立微信大群和微信协调群。转天上午9点,大家开始到郑州市第三看守所声援,打横幅。声援活动持续了一个月左右。7月中旬,吴淦到郑州市第三看守所声援现场,在看守所门前贴了一个“嘉奖令”,还做了一个“腿枪”的动作。7月底,吴淦又到现场两次,来鼓励大家继续声援。该事件是借声援、炒作敏感事件,鼓动百姓上街制造官民冲突,以达到推翻现有体制、推翻共产党领导、制造“颜色革命”及“和平转型”的目的。

3.证人林斌的证言证明:滕彪与其联系为声援郑州被拘留人员募集资金,让其提供银行账号。滕彪通过新浪微博、腾讯微博、微信朋友圈把其提供的账号发到了网上。其把募集的钱转给了现场声援的人。

4.证人杨福喜(郑州市第三看守所工作人员)的证言证明:2014年7月12日,吴淦和几个人来到第三看守所门口。吴淦面朝大门,双手抱起一只脚对着看守所的标牌拍照,接着又拿出张纸贴在看守所标牌下方,自己坐在地上抱起一只腿,脚尖朝着看守所拍照,之后几人离开。

5.证人黄某某的证言证明:2014年,其在担任郑州市公安局局长期间,吴淦介入炒作当时郑州市公安局正在侦办的于世文等人寻衅滋事案,在网络上无端对其诋毁、中伤。吴淦先后在网络上制作“嘉奖令”,发动网民表演“腿枪枪毙黄某某”的“行为艺术”。吴淦还在网上悬赏,鼓动网民对其进行爆料。

6.郑州市第三看守所出具的情况说明证明:2014年7月6日至8月1日,与于世文等人案件无关的百十人每天在该所门口聚集,打横幅、标语,并呼喊口号,要求释放在押人员,部分人员在该所门口搭帐篷、接力绝食,同时在网上发布绝食抗议的照片,进行煽动、炒作,并借机发表攻击党和政府的言论,引发大量不明真相的网民转发评论。

7.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)远勘〔2015〕1号远程勘验笔录、厦公(网)电检〔2015〕8号电子数据检查笔录证明:经对吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫”(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据,与吴淦相关的昵称为“快乐爱阳光公益”(UID:2345898410)和“超级低俗屠fu”3735687154)新浪微博账号的历史微博数据进行勘验、检查,从中提取到含有侮辱、贬损郑州市公安局及其工作人员内容的“嘉奖令”,以及吴淦“声援”现场滋事人员,为滋事人员募款等内容的推文、历史微博。

经吴淦确认,相关内容系其发布于互联网。

8.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)电检〔2015〕12号电子数据检查笔录证明:在吴淦账号为wxid-jah3jvtel34u12(昵称“超级低俗屠夫现用”)的微信朋友圈中,发现吴淦发布的涉及于世文等人寻衅滋事案的相关信息,主要内容为煽动他人到郑州聚集、为现场聚集人员募款,在郑州市第三看守所门前表演“行为艺术”,发布含有侮辱、贬损郑州市公安局及其工作人员内容的“嘉奖令”等。

9.被告人吴淦的供述:2014年5月,其通过网络了解到于世文等人被抓,即介入事件。7月上旬,华春辉等人希望其发起募款,其怕被抓,就推荐林斌、华春辉、滕彪组织募款。期间,其最先在互联网上发布推文,帮助前去声援的人和为声援提供费用的人搭桥联系。其先后去过郑州两次,一次是在2014年7月初,在现场通过沟通协调,使大家对这次声援活动的某些关键性问题达成一致;一次是在同年7月底,在第三看守所门前给声援网友送西瓜,表示慰问和支持,并拍照、录像上传互联网。此外,其采取“三大宝典”中的手段,制作了一份“嘉奖令”发布到互联网上,以恶搞形式贬损郑州市公安局局长,在网上公布电话号码让大家对其“关照”;在郑州市第三看守所门口表演“行为艺术”,并拍照发布到互联网上。

八、炒作程海等人行政处罚案件

2014年9月,律师程海因扰乱法庭秩序被北京市昌平区法局依法行政处罚。被告人吴淦得知即将于昌平区阳光中途之家举行拟给予程海行政处罚的听证会后,通过信息网络鼓动他人前往现场聚集滋事。9月5日上午,吴淦手持标牌,伙同他人在听证会举办地大门外聚集滋事。当晚,刘四新等人到北京市公安局昌平分局龙园派出所,“声援”被该所审查的现场滋事人员,因辱骂民警、扰乱单位秩序被行政拘留。吴淦得知后,在其新浪微博及推特账号发布帖文,污蔑、诋毁公安机关及其工作人员,煽动对国家政权的仇恨。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.北京市昌平区司法局提供的行政处罚决定书、听证会公告、《关于举行程海律师行政处罚听证会的情况》证明:程海为北京悟天律师事务所律师。2014年1月27日,程海以辩护人身份参加开庭审理过程中,不服从法庭指挥,扰乱法庭秩序,干扰诉讼活动的正常进行。2014年9月5日,昌平区司法局在昌平区阳光中途之家举行拟给予程海行政处罚的听证会,9月15日,决定给予程海停止执业一年的行政处罚。

2.证人杨洪昌(北京秀花农家乐旅游观光园餐饮经理)的证言证明:2014年9月5日,在秀花农庄举行一个听证会。当天,农庄门口陆续来了近百人,吵闹着要冲进农庄,与现场维持秩序的人员纠缠,有的举牌抗议,有的照相,还有几个人穿写有抗议内容的衣服。员工出入受到影响,保安在劝离时遭到推搡,其报警。

3.证人李清华(北京市公安局昌平分局马池口派出所辅警)的证言及辨认笔录证明:听证会当天9时许,一名光头、较胖的男子来到现场,安排聚集人员在农庄门口照相。后来,光头男子把一张写有字的张牌举在胸前,民警上前制止并将纸牌拿走,光头男子辱骂民警,并喊民警抢劫了,别人也跟着喊。经其辨认,该光头男子为吴淦。

4.证人李铮(北京市公安局昌平分局民警)的证言及辨认笔录证明:听证会当日,陆续有人到秀花农庄口聚集,围堵大门,并拉横幅、举标语、照相。期间,一名男子双手举一张A4纸,上面印有文字,其将该纸张夺下,随即该男子大声辱骂民警,伙同他人将民警包围,大声喊“抢劫犯”,引起现场秩序混乱,在民警进入大门时,该男子还大声喊“滚回去”。经其辨认,该男子为吴淦。

上述证言有北京市公安局昌平分局民警海波的证言及辨认笔录予以佐证。

5.证人刘四新的证言证明:其看到去参加听证的“公民”被带到龙园派出所的消息后,即赶到龙园派出所,在外边大喊,有没有带脏话不记得了。马强见此情况也很激动并叫骂。后其二人因扰乱单位秩序被行政拘留七天。

6.证人李某某(时任北京市公安局昌平分局龙园派出所所长)的证言及自书材料证明:2014年9月5日,龙园派出所接指令,到秀花农庄将听证会现场闹事的人带回所里审查。当晚,所里来了一伙人大吵大闹,其中有两人被派出所拘留。9月8日,吴淦在网上发布四张图片和“全民戏犬”的帖子对其辱骂、侮辱,还煽动网民对其进行骚扰。

上述证言有北京市公安局昌平分局出具的情况说明材料及龙园派出所民警李春鹏、毛东涛的证言予以佐证。

7.北京秀花农家乐旅游观光园出具的营业执照及情况说明、厦门市公安局思明分局出具的情况说明证明:北京秀花农家乐旅游观光园对外也称秀花农庄,昌平区阳光中途之家系该观光园区域范围内的一部分。 

8.北京市公安局昌平分局提供的马池口派出所受案登记表、吴淦询问笔录、到案经过等证明:2014年9月5日,公安机关依法将吴淦自秀花农庄程海听证会门前传唤至派出所接受询问,吴淦承认当天来到秀花农庄门口。

9.北京市公安局昌平分局预审大队提供的龙园派出所受案登记表、行政处罚决定书证明:2014年9月5日,刘四新、马强在龙园派出所门前辱骂民警、扰乱单位秩序,昌平分局依法决定分别给予其二人行政拘留七日的处罚。

10.北京市公安局昌平分局提供的执勤民警拍摄的现场视频证明:吴淦等人在秀花农庄门前非法聚集滋事的情况。

11.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)电检〔2015〕5号、7号电子数据检查笔录、厦公(网)远勘〔2015〕1号远程勘验笔录、厦公(网)电检〔2015〕12号电子数据检查笔录证明:经对吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫”(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据,与吴淦相关的昵称为“快乐爱阳光公益”(UID:2345898410)新浪微博账号的历史微博数据、吴淦微信朋友圈数据进行勘验、检查,从中提取到吴淦散布“程海听证会路线”、号召网友“声援”,贬损公安民警,诋毁公安机关报复性执法等内容的推文、历史微博等。

经吴淦确认,相关内容系其发布于互联网。

12.被告人吴淦的供述:其得知2014年9月5日将举行关于于程海的听证会后,就在网上发布了去听证会现场的路线帖子。当天,其来到听证会现场,现场有很多人,其中有一些网友、律师。其在现场写了一张标语,内容是“律邪死法局是文明社会的毒瘤”,后来标语被收走了。听证会后,其得知刘四新和马强被拘留,网友发起“戏犬”行动,就在微博、推特上转发了针对派出所所长李某某的图片以及自己的评论,对刘四新和马强进行声援。听证会是昌平区司法局的报复行为,其去声援是对程海表示支持。

九、炒作陆勇租赁合同纠纷案件

2014年12月,被告人吴淦的朋友陆勇准备就其租赁合同纠纷案向云南省大理白族自治州中级人民法院(以下简称大理中院)提出申诉,并通过吴淦委托北京锋锐律师事务所代理此案。该所主任周世锋同意后,指使吴淦配合谢远东前往大理白族自治州炒作、滋事。2015年1月,吴淦在大理中院等地张贴标语,驾驶贴有标语的汽车在大理中院门前、院内招摇,同时,持续通过其新浪微博、推特和北京锋锐律师事务所微博账号发布其在大理滋事的信息、照片等进行炒作,并编造事实对大理中院及该院院长进行攻击和诋毁,抹黑司法机关及其工作人员形象,煽动不明真相的人仇视国家司法体制。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.证人陆勇的证言证明:其与他人租赁合同纠纷案在法院主持下达成调解协议并履行完毕。后其通过朋友吴淦委托北京锋锐律师事务所代理申诉。2015年初,其与吴淦、谢远东来到大理。在大理期间,其与吴淦、谢远东商议,将印有大理中院院长枉法裁判等内容的标语贴在汽车上,驾驶汽车在法院门前来回行驶,后把车停在法院门口。

2.证人周世锋的证言证明:2015年1月,陆勇在大理有个民事案件需要找律师代理,其派谢远东、吴淦去大理具体操作这个案件。吴淦和谢远东到了大理后的第二天或者第三天,吴淦打电话说让陆勇花钱租了一辆当地的小汽车,在车上贴了一些印有大理中院院长贪赃枉法等内容的标语类的东西,然后开车在法院内外转圈,吴淦当场还喊了口号。

3.证人谢远东的证言证明:2015年1月,周世锋让其与吴淦为陆勇的案子去大理。其找吴淦要材料时,吴淦说:“我会好好折腾一下。”其听后说:“我负责挑法院的刺,你负责闹事。”1月8日上午,其与吴淦、陆勇来到大理中院,吴淦将事前准备的标语贴在法院周边,还对标语拍照,随后发到网上。第二天,三人在大理白族自治州人民检察院门口贴了标语,并拍照发到网上。午饭后路过大理中院,吴淦看见他前一天在法院门口贴的标语没了,就下车又贴了一张,还让陆勇帮他拍照,后吴淦将照片上网。标语的主要内容是说大理中院院长枉法裁判,上面还有院长的照片。

4.证人李雄章(时任大理中院副院长)的证言证明:2015年1月8日,有人打电话说法院里面贴有攻击院长鲍某的标语,其让法警张亮带人处理。不久,张亮回来说在法院的柱子上、大门口、对面的电杆和电箱、旁边大理检察院门口公告栏等地方发现了五六张标语,都是反映院长鲍某的。其将这些标语都留了下来。1月12日,有人打电话说在法院后面的法官小区内贴有反映院长鲍某问题的标语,其吩咐法警李立锋处理。不久,李立锋说在法官小区及周边发现10张左右的标语。这些标语上面有鲍某的照片,写的是鲍某徇私枉法,是法盲、流氓等侮辱性的文字。

上述证言有大理中院法警张亮、董广毅、李锦德的证言予以佐证。

5.证人庄晶龙(大理中院法警)的证言证明:2015年1月12日7时许,其在监控室发现一辆轿车停在法院大门旁边,即与同事到法院门口巡视。吴淦和陆勇都在车旁边,车的前机器盖、后挡风坡璃及侧面的所有窗户上都贴满了标语,写有院长鲍某是法盲、流氓、询私枉法等内容。为避免群众围观,其让吴淦将车开进法院里面。吴淦把车开进法院后,驾车围着法院前院转圈,感觉是在示威。

上述证言有大理中院法警杨智、王俊博的证言予以佐证。

6.证人鲍某(时任大理中院院长)的证言证明:2015年1月的一天,其接到杨瑞东副院长的电话,说一个当事人来闹事,其让杨瑞东安排人接待,把相关材料收好。第二天,杨瑞东向其汇报说来人是吴淦、陆勇和北京的一个实习律师,并给其看了两份控告材料,一份是文字的,内容大概是其涉嫌犯罪、徇私枉法之类的,一份是标语,上面有其照片,照片旁边有两行字“我是流氓我怕谁,我是法盲我怕谁'。过了没两天,法院门口停着一辆汽车,车破璃上贴满了标语,上面写着“鲍某徇私枉法”“涉嫌犯罪”之类的话。

7.证人阮才兴(时任大理白族自治州人民检察院控申处处长)的证言证明:2015年1月的一天,吴淦、陆勇、还有一个自称是北京律师的人,到检察院控申处控告大理中院院长鲍某徇私枉法。后发现他们在检察院门口张贴标语,标语上有鲍某的照片,写着鲍某掏私枉法之类的话,其将标语交给控申处副处长李天从保管。

上述证言有时任大理白族自治州人民检察院控申处副处长李天从的证言予以佐证。

8.证人冯安梅(大理白族自治州人民政府工作人员)的证言证明:2015年1月初的一天中午,其看到州政府门口的柱子上贴了一张标语,内容是关于州法院院长鲍某的。

上述证言有时任大理白族自治州人民政府保卫科科长杨文胜的证言予以佐证。

9.大理中院提供的该院(2011)大中民终字第74号民事判决书、(2014)大中民申字第22号民事裁定书、(2014)大中民再字第1号民事调解书及大理市人民法院(2010)大民二初字第453号民事判决书证明:陆勇所涉租赁合同纠纷案处理情况。

10.大理中院提供的法院院内监控录像、接待笔录、陆勇等人提交的刑事控告书等证明:2015年1月8曰,吴淦、陆勇等人到大理中院投诉院长鲍某;1月12日8时许,吴淦、陆勇将牌照号为粤B7FH81的汽车停在法院门口,车身上贴着写有“鲍某法盲”“枉法造假”“送钱给鲍某”“他敢把法卖”等内容的标语,后吴淦将该车驶入大理中院院内,陆勇替吴淦拍照或录像。

11.大理市公安局北区派出所接处警登记表,大理中院报案材料及提供的传单证明:2015年1月12日,大理中院就吴淦、谢远东的行为向公安机关报案。1月15日,大理市公安局对大理中院报案进行调查,并接到大理中院提供的相关证据材料传单18份。其中,2015年1月8日在大理中院及周边提取包含“大理州鲍某私家中级法院”、鲍某照片及陆勇案件裁定等内容的传单;1月9日在大理白族自治州人民政府门前提取的传单内容同上;1月12日在法官小区及周边再次提取到上述内容的传单,同时,还提取到主要内容为“鲍某法盲““枉法造假”“送钱给鲍某”“他敢把法卖”的标语。

12.大理白族自治区机关事务管理局提供的大理白族自治州政府门前监控录像截屏证明:2015年1月9日,吴淦在州政府门口张贴标语。

13.北京微梦创科网络技术有限公司出具的《关于“周世锋等人涉嫌颠覆国家政权煽动颠覆国家政权”案的说明函复》及电子数据光盘证明:公安机关自该公司调取昵称为“周世锋律师”(UID:2241841747)、“北京锋锐律师事务所”(UID:2916377514)微博的注册信息、微博内容及转发量、评论量。

14.天津市公安局电子证据检验鉴定中心津公(网安)检〔2016〕059号、064号电子数据检查工作记录、津公(网安)勘〔2016〕021号远程勘验笔录证明:经对昵称为“快乐爱阳光公益”(UID:2345898410)、“北京锋锐律师事务所”(UID:2916377514)新浪微博账号的历史微博数据,以及吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫”(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据进行检查、勘验,从中提取到与陆勇租赁合同纠纷案相关的历史微博、推文,主要内容为控告大理中院院长鲍某违法乱纪、收受贿赂,把法院当私家法院、把法律当商品卖,声称吴淦将前往跟踪曝光,并记录了吴淦等人在法院周边贴标语的情况。

15.被告人吴淦的供述:2014年12月,其介绍锋锐律师事务所代理了陆勇的房屋租赁案件,周世锋将案件交给谢远东办理,让其协助。2015年1月8日上午,其与陆勇、谢远东来到大理,其制作了印有“大理州鲍某私家中级法院”字样的海报及标语,复印了30份左右。9日上午,其与陆勇先到大理中院,把一份海报贴在法院门口的柱子上。10日上午,其与谢远东、陆勇在大理白族自治州人民检察院门口贴了相同内容的海报,又到大理白族自治州人民政府门口张贴,陆勇给其拍照。12日,其把标语贴在汽车两侧玻璃上,和陆勇把车开到法院门口,后开进法院转了一圈,陆勇拍照。还把宣传海报贴在法院门口。在介入此案的过程中,其将相关情况用手机在推特和微博上发布,配有评论和照片。

十、炒作范木根故意伤害案件

2013年12月3日,范木根在江苏省苏州市持刀伤人,被公安机关立案侦查,引起较大社会关注。2014年1月19日,被告人吴淦在北京参加“范木根案研讨会”,宣称“这个制度不结束,会永远掠夺”,并鼓动各个群体联合对抗国家政权。2015年1月,吴淦获知此案即将开庭审理,即在互联网上煽动他人前往苏州非法聚集。期间,吴淦利用互联网持续进行恶意炒作,试图扩大事态,挑起不明真相的人仇视、对抗国家政权。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.证人翟岩民的证言证明:2015年春节后,范木根案第一次开庭前,吴淦发布了为律师及前去声援的人募捐的帖子。律师也发了关于案件何时开庭,希望全国的人前来旁听、声援的帖子。之后,就有很多人前往苏州,包括刘星等人都去声援了。第一次开庭时在法庭外面聚集了七八百人。

2.证人勾洪国的证言证明:其在北京丰台区六里桥附近的一家饭店参加了一个范案的研讨会,参加人员包括刘四新、吴淦、周鸿等人。这个研讨会就是对范木根案件进行炒作,把范木根案事态扩大化,造成最大化的社会影响。

3.证人刘四新的证言证明:2014年1月,其参加了一个范木根案的研讨会,内容是就范木根案发表自己的意见。在与胡石根、吴淦等人的一次聚餐中,其与吴淦等人提到要多揭批地方政府,给政府施压,苏州当地访民要多拍照,多在网上发帖、转帖进行炒作。吴淦和戈觉平还商量为范木根案募集资金,解决律师费、去苏州声援的食宿费等。

4.证人范永海(范木根之子)的证言证明:其通过戈觉平与吴淦相识。2014年1月19日左右,其在北京参加范木根案研讨会时,看见吴淦在会上讲话。吴淦在与其父关联的寻衅滋事案开庭前,给其弄了一个网上捐款。捐款主要用于来苏州声援人员的食宿。

5.江苏省苏州市中级人民法院提供的该院(2014)苏中刑初字第73号刑事附带民事判决书、江苏省髙级人民法院(2015)苏刑一终字第155号刑事附带民事裁定书证明:范木根因犯故意伤害罪被判刑,以及相关案情、开庭时间等审判工作情况。

6.天津市滨海新区公安局网络安全保卫支队津滨公(网安)勘〔2015〕001号远程勘验工作记录证明:经远程勘查,在“范木根案研讨会”参与者周鸿陵博客中发现文章,记载了2014年1月19日下午2点至6点召开的“范木根案研讨会”上与会人员的发言内容,其中,吴淦部分发言内容为:“制度不改’跟他讲没有用……这个制度不结束,会永远掠夺,而且任何人挡不住掠夺的本性……艺术家、学者或者律师都介入,把这个事弄大……;要打破圈子……要相互交叉、协作、团结,不断的消耗他们的成本……”

7.天津市公安局电子证据检验鉴定中心津公(网安)检〔2016〕058号电子数据检查工作记录、津公(网安)勘〔2016〕21号远程勘验笔录证明:经对与吴淦相关的昵称为“快乐阳光公益”(UID:2345898410)新浪微博账号的历史微博数据、吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据进行勘验、检查,从中提取到吴淦发布的与苏州范木根案相关的历史微博及推文,主要内容为吴淦“声援”范木根等人,鼓动他人到苏州非法聚集,为范木根案进行募款,诬蔑国家政权“暴利掠夺公民财产”等。

8.被告人吴淦的供述:范木根案发生后,引起社会舆论的广泛关注,其发表了一些评论,转发了一些与其观点类似的网友评论。2014年1月,其应邀参加范木根案件研讨会,其在会上呼吁“网民圈”“律师圈”“访民圈”相互帮助、相互借力、及时沟通信息,形成合力,让更多的人认识到司法制度的黑暗,给审判机关施压。其在网上了解到范木根案即将开庭,就转发消息让更多的网友关注此案,最好能到当地法院进行现场声援造势。其在网上以其名义发起为范木根捐款,当时在网上发布了募款倡议书,倡议书里的话都是其自己写的。庭审开始之后,其转发了当地民众在法院门外进行声援造势的图片,目的是呼吁网友在线上线下都要关注这个案子,给司法机关施压。

十一、炒作李杰敲诈勒索案件

2013年8月,李杰因涉嫌犯敲诈勒索罪被河北省保定市满城县(现满城区)公安机关抓获。2014年5月,李杰家属委托北京锋锐律师事务所代理该案。2015年10月,李杰被满城区人民法院以敲诈勒索罪判处刑罚。该案审理期,被告人吴淦受周世锋指使,对案件进行炒作。吴淦编造保定市政法委为塑造形象而制造冤案的帖文,于2015年3月10至14日通过北京锋锐律师事务所微博和吴淦个人新浪微博、推特账号发布,抹黑、污蔑地方党委和司法机关,煽动不明真相的人对国家司法体制不满。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.证人李萍(李杰之妻)的证言证明:李杰因涉嫌敲诈勒索被保定市满城县公安局刑事拘留后,其与李杰的姐夫找到周世锋、黄力群为李杰作无罪辩护.

2.证人周世锋的证言证明:李杰的家属慕名到锋锐律师事务所委托其为李杰涉嫌犯罪案件辩护,其同意。后来吴淦也参与此案,其两次授意吴淦通过发布微博炒作李杰案,吴淦便在微博和微信上发帖并配发了照片。其还授意黄力群向有关部门反映虚假情况,李杰的家属给很多部门寄过黄力群写的举报材料。

3.满城区人民法院提供的该院(2014)满刑初字第128号、(2014)满刑初字第245号刑事判决书,保定市中级人民法院(2014)保刑终字第405号、(2015)保刑终字第596号刑事裁定书证明:北京锋锐律师事务所律师黄力群等人接受委托为李杰进行辩护,以及李杰案依法处理的情况。

4.天津市公安局电子证据检验鉴定中心津公(网安)检〔2016〕054号、068号电子数据检查工作记录证明:在昵称为“北京锋锐律师事务所”(UID:2916377514)、“快乐爱阳光公益”(UID:2345898410)的新浪微博账号中均搜索到与河北李杰敲诈勒索案相关的历史微博,其中,2015年3月10日至14日发布的部分内容为号召“关注河北保定满城这起政法委领导为了形象工程而整出的大冤案“。 

5.天津市公安局电子证据检验鉴定中心津公(网安)勘〔2016〕021号远程勘验笔录证明:经对吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫”(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据进行勘验检查,从中提取到与河北李杰案相关的推文,推文内容与其在微博中发布的内容相同。

6.被告人吴淦的供述:周世锋让其找黄力群要李杰案的材料,整理后发到网上,其拿到后写了一篇评论,主要内容是反映李杰案时保定市政法委为量面子工程而制造的冤案,之后其把评论发布到锋锐律师事务所微博和其个人微博上。

十二、炒作庆安县火车站袭警事件

2015年5月2日,徐纯合因在黑龙江省绥化市庆安县火车站(以下简称庆安县火车站)滋事、袭警并抢夺警械,被民警依法击毙。事件发生后,被告人吴淦与他人联络,准备以为徐纯合家属提供法律援助为名,前往庆安县炒作。此后,吴淦以调查“真相”为名,在信息网络上发布大量歪曲事实的文章和信息,抹黑公安机关,煽动不明真相的人与国家机关对立,造成恶劣的政治影响。

上述事实,有以下证据证实:

1.证人田东杭的证言证明:2015年5月2日庆安县火车站内,一名警察将一男子拷在栏扞上。警察刚一松开这名男子,男子就追打警察,警察转身往警务室跑,把门关上,男子在外面踹门。警察拿着一根长棍子从屋里出来,男子就抢棍子。后来男子把—个老太太拽到,又回身抓起一个小女孩,用力摔扔在地上。男子抢过棍子打在警察的左肩膀部,警察就举枪喊“不许动“这时男子举棍又打在警察身上,警察开枪。后警察喊“赶快报警”。5月4日,吴淦到大连找其调查此事,其也是这样说的。

上述关于事发过程的证言有现场乘客吕洪建、王云骥的证言予以佐证。

2.证人李乐斌(哈尔滨铁路公安局哈尔滨公安处庆安车站派出所民警)的证言证明:庆安县火车站袭警事件发生后,网名为“超级低俗屠夫”的人网上发帖,称其枪杀访民,还把剪辑过的视频发到网上,把涉事男子袭击其的录像全部删除,看上去就是其一直拿着警棍打这个男子。还有一个帖子是“超级低俗屠夫”采访一个证人的录音和他写的一些文字。跟帖的人很多,基本上都是辱骂,说其是杀人恶警。有人要“人肉”其和家人,还说要杀其全家,每天都有几十个骚扰电话和骚扰短信,都是质疑和恐吓。其不敢领孩子出去玩,妻子也不敢出门。

关于此事对李乐斌和家人的影响,亦有李乐斌之妻王某某的证言予以佐证。

3.证人谢燕益的证言证明:2015年5月4日,吴淦与其联系,问其是否有时间代理徐纯合的案子,其在第二天和徐纯合的母亲通电话后决定去庆安县。到了哈尔滨后,其给吴淦打电话,吴淦说他要去大连取证。5月6日,其与其他律师找到徐纯合的亲属要代理权。后来几个人在公安机关门前打标语、静坐,还在网上联名发布声明、调查报告等文章。

4.证人翟岩民的证言证明:2015年5月3日,其在多个微信群里看到吴淦发起的悬赏征集现场视频的帖子,5月4日,在群里看到谢燕益等律师去庆安县炒作庆安事件的帖子。随着事件被炒热,访民就说要去庆安县声援。5月七八日左右,其打电话问吴淦是否需要组织人去声援,吴淦说暂时还不需要,要让律师先把事件炒热了,之后才需要大批量的访民去炒作和声援。如果吴淦不发帖悬赏的话,庆安事件也不会被炒得那么热。吴淦等人在“推墙”思想的引导下,借机大肆炒作,目的就是抹黑公安机关形象,让百姓对公安机关不满,对政府不信任,引发百姓与政府对立,今儿制造官民冲突,乃至流血事件,引起国际社会介入,最终达到推翻共产党的领导。

5.证人于云峰的证言证明:庆安事件发生后,吴淦对事件进行调查,说现场情况是警察在打徐纯合,与央视公布的结果不符。所以,其认为央视是有选择地公布情况,遂参与声援此事。

上述证言有迟进春的证言予以佐证。

6.哈尔滨铁路运输检察院出具的《关于“5•2”庆安枪击事件工作情况报告》《关于“5•2”庆安枪击事件的审查结论意见》证明:2015年5月2日,徐纯合在庆安县火车站候车室入口,无故阻止旅客进站,并对前来执行公务的民警辱骂、殴打,踢踹民警执勤室大门,后又向民警抛摔自己的幼女,抢下警棍殴打民警,被击毙。此次事件中民警时依法执行公务,使用枪支依规合法。

7.哈尔滨铁路公安局哈尔滨公安处出具的工作说明证明:网民“超级低俗屠夫“(真名吴淦)通过网上发帖等方式炒作庆安县火车站袭警事件,引发网民质疑该事件调查结论并对李乐斌进行电话和短信骚扰,自2015年5月17日至5月25日,李乐斌手机接收骚扰短信96条。

8.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)远勘〔2015〕4号远程勘验笔录证明:经对吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫(@tufuwugan)”的历史推特数据进行勘验检查,从中提取到与庆安县火车站袭警事件相关的帖文和图片,主要内容为吴淦与他人联络,以提供法律援助、调查“真相”为名,介入炒作庆安县火车站袭警事件,发布《屠夫(吴淦)庆安击毙事件调查2》等文章和信息,宣称徐纯合抢夺警械、拋摔女儿的事实系新华社和当地政府捏造等。

经吴淦确认,上述相关内容系其编写并发布于互联网。

9.天津市公安局电子证据检验鉴定中心津公(网安)检〔2016〕190号电子数据检查工作记录证明:经对与吴淦相关的新浪微博数据进行检查,在昵称为“快乐爱阳光公益”的账号(UID:2345898410)中搜索到与庆安县火车站袭警事件相关的历史微博15条,其中,2015年5月4日至5月12日发布的部分微博主要内容为,吴淦以提供法律援助为名与有关人员联系,介入庆安县火车站袭警事件。

10.福建省公安厅物证鉴定中心闽公鉴〔2015〕389号检验报告证明:在吴淦三星手机中发现昵称为“屠夫(吴淦)新号”的吴淦微信账号与昵称为“田东不隆冬杭”的田东杭微信账号之间的聊天记录,主要内容为,2015年5月5日,田东杭向吴淦陈述其目击的事发过程,明确称因徐纯合阻拦乘客进站,与警察发生口角,之后有抢夺民警警棍、袭警、拋摔孩子的行为。上述内容经吴淦签字确认,系其与田东杭的微信聊天内容。2015年5月8日,田东杭明确告知吴淦,关于吴淦发布的“徐纯合没有拋摔他女儿”等内容绝对是假的,其看见的一定是摔了孩子。经证人田东杭确认,上述昵称为“田东不隆冬杭”的微信账号系其使用的账号。经对吴淦三星手机、iPadmini中提取的数据进行分析、筛选,发现吴淦将其杜撰的“当地和新华社造谣徐纯合向警察抛摔女儿“以及《屠夫(吴淦)庆安击毙事件调查2》等不实言论转发给多人,并在多个微信群中散布。

11.被告人吴淦的供述:2015年5月初,其听说徐纯合仔庆安县火车站抢枪袭警,即与律师谢燕益联系,准备去哈尔滨,并在网络上公布了电话和邮箱,希望知情人或目击人提供相关资料。5月5日,其在前往哈尔滨的火车上联系上一个大连的目击证人,便到大连与这个人见面,该人说徐纯合打警察,扔小孩,并提供了现场视频和图片。其把证人提供的视频和采访录音,连同其撰写的评论《调查报告1十问》授权他人发布到境外网站博讯网上。后其在网上发布悬赏10万元征集庆安事件完整视频的信息。其还将本人撰写的评论《调查报告2》授权他人发到博讯网上。其本人将发布在博讯网上的内容也在推特上发布。

十三、在江西省高级人民法院门前滋事炒作

2015年5月,江西省高级人民法院(以下简称江西高院)门前连续多日有人聚集、举牌。被告人吴淦闻讯后,通过互联网持续发帖恶意炒作。同年5月18日,吴淦来到江西高院门前,辱骂时任江西高院院长张某某。5月19日,吴淦在江西高院门前摆设写有侮辱张某某内容的墓碑状广告牌,并拍照上传至互联网炒作、抹黑司法机关,煽动仇视国家司法体制。当日,吴淦因扰乱单位秩序、公然侮辱他人被行政拘留。

上述事实,有一下证据证实:

1.证人戴立群(江西高院立案一庭法官)的证言证明:自2015年3月24日,一案件当事人的亲属和律师开始来上访。5月14日,开始有人到高院门口聚集,他们举牌、拍照、喊口号,晚上还有人点蜡烛,直至5月25日。5月19日,吴淦到高院门前举着带有院长张某某肖像的牌子破口大骂,当天被拘留。

上述证言有南昌市公安局东湖分局大院派出所民警罗旋、周建文、胡青的证言予以佐证。

2.证人万雪勇(江西高院保安大队队长)的证言证明:2015年5月份,有律师带着几名群众到法院门口举牌、打横幅、喊口号等,还有人拍照上传网络。期间,吴淦在法院门口摆放两张广告牌,一张是把院长张某某的照片画在墓碑上,另一张在张某某的画像上画了一个小胡子,还大骂张某某。

上述证言有江西高院保安涂国华、陈瓔的证言予以佐证。

3.南昌市公安局东湖分局大院派出所提供的江西高院报案材料、东湖分局受案登记表、行政处罚决定书等证明:2015年5月18日,吴淦在江西高院门前大声喊叫,侮辱该院院长。5月19日,吴淦因在江西高院门前摆设写有侮辱该院院长内容的广告牌,并将相关内容发至互联网,公然侮辱他人,被南昌市公安局东湖分局行政拘留十日。

4.南昌市公安局东湖分局大院派出所提供的江西高院门前录像视频证明:吴淦在该院门前辱骂该院院长及摆放两张广告牌滋事,其中,一张广告牌为墓碑样式,中间有该院院长的照片等内容;一张广告牌抬头写有“江西高院张某某院长你开个价吧!”的文字,中间有张某某的照片。

5.厦门市公安局网络安全保卫支队厦公(网)远勘〔2015〕5号远程勘验笔录证明:经对吴淦推特账号“超级低俗屠夫”(@tufuwugan)的历史推特数据进行勘验,从中提取到相关推文8条,其中部分内容为,吴淦于2015年5月18日谩骂、侮辱江西高院院长。

6.被告人吴淦的供述:其得知律师在江西高院门前聚集的消息后,于2015年5月18日到江西高院门口,骂了江西高院院长。第二案上午,其去广告店制作了两个易拉宝广告牌,一个广告牌写有“江西高院院长你开个价“,另一个广告牌上有讲叙高院院长头像,头像上加了日本式的仁丹胡和对联,还打印了与广告内容一样的宣传材料,之后就去了江西高院门口,把这两个广告牌立起来摆着。

此外,公诉机关还向法庭出示了下列证据:

1.厦门市公安局莲前派出所出具的吴淦户籍证明材料证明:吴淦的自然身份情况。

2.福建省公安厅指定管辖决定书、厦门市公安局思明分局立案决定书;公安部《关于对北京锋锐律师事务所相关人员涉嫌犯罪案件指定管辖的通知》、情况说明,天津市公安局指定管辖决定书、天津市公安局河西分局立案决定书;厦门市公安局思明分局移送案件通知书;案件来源和到案经过材料;拘留证、逮捕证等证明:本案的案发、立案、采取强制措施等相关情况。

3.提取笔录、扣押决定书、扣押清单证明:2015年5月28日,厦门市公安局扣押吴淦随身携带的三星牌手机一部、iphone4手机一部、iPadmini一部、U盘一个、“屠夫证”一本等物品。

以上证据均经本院庭审举证、质证,系侦查机关依照法律程序获取,来源、形式合法,证据之间没有矛盾,且形成完整证明体系。本院予以确认。

针对被告人吴淦及其辩护人提出的辩解和辩护意见,根据本案的事实和证据,本院评判如下:

1.关于被告人吴淦及其辩护人所提吴淦在北京羁押期间遭受刑讯逼供、疲劳讯问;部分讯问笔录中记载的关押地点与实际关押地点不符;部分讯问人员没有侦查权限,参与制作的讯问笔录没有效力,故申请排除吴淦自2015年7月5日至2016年1月8日的所有供述的辩解和辩护意见。

经查,天津市河西区看守所提讯提解证、立案登记表、立案决定书、公安部《关于对北京锋锐律师事务所相关人员涉嫌犯罪案件指定管辖的通知》、情况说明等证据证明,本案由公安部组织北京、天津、福建、山东等地公安机关办理,吴淦先后在福建、北京、天津等地羁押,福建、北京、天津公安机关对本案具有侦查权。公诉机关当庭出示的证据能够证明侦查机关讯问人员、讯问地点合法,且能够排除侦查机关存在以刑讯逼供等非法方法收集证据的情形。综上,公诉机关向法庭提交的被告人吴淦的供述能够作为定案证据使用,被告人及其辩护人的该项辩解和辩护意见,本院不予支持。

2.关于被告人吴淦及其辩护人所提在案所有电子数据的提取主体并非本案侦查机关,也没有侦查机关委托提取电子数据的手续,提取过程没有记录,电子数据收集的方式、方法不符合法律规定,不具有合法性,不能作为定案证据使用的辩解和辩护意见。经查,北京微梦创科网络技术有限公司出具的《关于“吴淦寻衅滋事”案的调证函复》《关于“吴淦诽谤”案的说明函复》和深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司出具的说明、微博注册资料、微博发文,以及在案远程勘验笔录、检验报告等证据证明,在案电子数据系福建、天津等地侦查机关分别从北京微梦创科网络技术有限公司、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司等机构调去,从依法扣押的吴淦手机、ipadmini等原始储存介质中提取,以及通过远程勘验获取。福建、天津等地公安机关对本案具有侦查权,在案电子数据的收集主体适格、手续合法。勘验、检查笔录及检验报告均对勘验、检查、检验过程进行了说明,在案电子数据收集程序、方式符合法律规定及有关技术规范。被告人及其辩护人的该项辩解和辩护意见不能成立,本院不予采纳。

关于被告人吴淦机器辩护人所提公诉机关出示的网络上的部分文章和音频并非吴淦发布的原始内容,且不能确认是吴淦本人发布的辩解和辩护意见。经查,吴淦通过信息网络发布的部分文章及讲座音频内容不仅有在案电子数据予以证明,还有证人证言、视听资料以及吴淦的供述予以佐证,且相应文章及音频内容已经吴淦分别在侦查和庭审期间确认,系其本人编写并发布于信息网络。被告人及其辩护人的该项辩解和辩护意见不能成立,本院不予采纳。

关于被告人吴淦及其辩护人所提在案大部分证人与吴淦有利害关系,且证言之间相互矛盾,均系主观臆断,故不具有证明力;证人翟岩民、周世锋等人可能遭受刑讯逼供,相应证言不能作为定案根据的辩解和辩护意见。经查,本案证人作为具体事件的参与者,证言的内容是对吴淦言行和事件的直接感知和客观描述,并非主观臆断,且相关证言之间以及与在案电子数据、视听资料等证据之间能够互相印证,具有客观性、合法性、关联性,能够作为定案根据;吴淦及其辩护人对周世锋、翟岩民等人证言的合法性提出质疑,但未提供任何材料或者线索。被告人及其辩护人的该项辩解和辩护意见不能成立,本院不予采纳。

3.关于被告人吴淦及其辩护人所提在案所有证据不能证明吴淦主观上具有颠覆国家政权的犯罪故意,客观上实施了颠覆国家政权的犯罪行为;吴淦参与十二起案事件均事出有因,在网络上发布的内容均是事实,且在吴淦参与的具体案事件中,部分参与者或者未被刑事处罚、或者被以其他罪名定罪处罚,对吴淦以颠覆国家政权罪进行指控没有法律依据;吴淦在网络上发表“三大宝典”等言论和实施围观、炒作等行为均是公民行使宪法賦予的正当权利,既未针对国家政权,也未造成国家政权被颠覆的结果,故吴淦的行为不构成颠覆国家政权罪的辩解和辩护意见。

经查,根据刑法规定,颠覆国家政权罪是指行为人组织、策划、实施颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的行为,该罪的犯罪构成不要求有颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的实际危害后果发生,采取各种手段企图颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的,不论得逞与否,均构成该罪。在案证据证明,吴淦长期利用信息网络宣扬用以颠覆国家政权的“推墙”思想,对我国国家政权和社会主义制度进行攻击、诋毁。期间,吴淦将其炒作热点案事件的做法进行总结,发布了以攻击国家司法、信访等制度,传授与国家政权对抗方法、手段为主要内容的“三大宝典”。在“三大宝典”中,吴淦主张采取网上网下炒作滋事等手段,针对国家机关及其工作人员进行侮辱、贬损,借以攻击、对抗国家政权。吴淦在信息网络上发表的“三大宝典”、帖文及接受境外媒体采访时发布的言论,充分证明其主观上具有颠覆国家政权罪的犯罪故意,吴淦当庭亦承认其有颠覆国家政权思想。在此主观故意支配下,吴淦与他人相勾结,陆续炒作十二起热点案事件,对抗国家政权,攻击宪法所确立的国家制度,符合颠覆国家政权罪的构成要件。我国宪法赋予公民言论自由和对国家机关及其工作人员批评、建议、控告等权利的同时,规定公民在行使权利和自由的时候不得损害国家的、社会的、集体的利益和其他公民合法的自由和权利。吴淦在信息网络发表“三大宝典”等文章、言论,炒作热点案事件,或者借题发挥,放大矛盾,或者编造谣言、歪曲事实,不仅严重损害他人名誉,严重扰乱社会秩序,而且严重危害国家安全,系以反映诉求之名行颠覆国家政权之实,已超越了正当行使权利和自由的法律界限,触犯了刑法有关规定。同时,虽然具有同样的行为,但行为主体、主观故意以及造成的社会危害程度等不同,会构成不同的性质和情节。不能因参与相同案事件的人未受到刑事处罚或者被以其他罪名定罪处罚,就得出吴淦的行为不构成颠覆国家政权罪的结论。综上,被告人吴淦及其辩护人的该项辩解和辩护意见不能成立,本院不予采纳。

本院认为,被告人吴淦以颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度为目的,通过在信息网络上散布颠覆国家政权的言论、炒作热点案事件等方式,攻击国家政权和宪法所确立的国家制度,严重危害国家安全和社会稳定,其行为已构成颠覆国家政权罪。公诉机关指控吴淦犯颠覆国家政权罪的事实清楚,证据确实、充分,指控罪名成立。吴淦犯罪行为积极、情节恶劣,社会危害性大,主观恶性深,应依法从严惩处,吴淦因本案相应事实被行政拘留的期限,依法折抵刑期。根据吴淦犯罪的事实、性质、情节和对于社会的危害程度,依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百零五条第一款、第六十一条、第五十六条第一款、第五十四条、第五十五条第一款、第五十八条的规定,判决如下:

被告人吴淦犯颠覆国家政权罪,判处有期徒刑八年,剥夺政治权利五年。

(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2015年5月19日起至2023年5月18日止。)

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天津市髙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        蔡淑英
审判员        林崑
代理审判员    刘毅

二○一七年十二月二十一日

书记员        李占强