Grok

Analysis and Commentary on the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Relevant Provisions of the Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China

中文部分 / Chinese Section

引言

《中华人民共和国刑法》（以下简称《刑法》）第293条规定了寻衅滋事罪，强调行为须“破坏社会秩序”，并通过《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理利用信息网络实施诽谤等刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（以下简称《两高解释》）第5条扩展至网络空间。 《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》（以下简称《刑诉法》）保障无罪推定（第12条）、证据规则（第53条）和程序公正（如第118条搜查、第188条不公开审理）。 本案中，昆明司法机关以陈京元转发Twitter帖文定罪，涉嫌要件缺失和程序违法，凸显法律适用不当。本文基于这些规定进行分析。

实体法分析：寻衅滋事罪构成要件缺失

  1. 主观要件“明知虚假”：《刑法》第14条要求故意犯罪须“明知”事实并追求结果。《两高解释》第5条规定，“明知是虚假信息在信息网络上散布、传播”。判决以“高学历=应辨别是非”推定“明知”，缺乏直接证据（如供述），违反主观故意证明原则。 陈京元转发公开帖文（如美国使领馆评论）系学术表达，非“明知”谣言。

  2. 客观要件“虚假信息”与“破坏社会秩序”：《刑法》第293条要求“破坏社会秩序”，《两高解释》第5条限“造成公共秩序严重混乱”。本案证据为浏览器缓存图片，无原创/增删，无转发量阈值（如>5000次）或群体事件实证，难以证明“虚假”或“混乱”。 适用不当，异化为“思想罪”。

  3. 情节严重性：无社会危害证据，量刑1年8个月超出兜底适用，违反罪刑相适应原则（《刑法》第5条）。

程序法分析：多重违法

  1. 证据收集违法：《刑诉法》第53条要求“证据确实、充分，形成锁链”，第118条规定搜查须出示搜查证。 本案无证破门、刑讯逼供（殴打取密码），证据非法，须排除（第54条）。

  2. 审判程序瑕疵：《刑诉法》第12条确立无罪推定，第188条限不公开审理于秘密案。 本案预设有罪、不公开审理、剥夺自辩权、二审书面审理，违反公开公正和辩护权（第33条）。

评论

本案暴露《刑法》和《刑诉法》在网络言论领域的滥用：“寻衅滋事罪”作为“口袋罪”，要件模糊助长选择性执法，削弱法治公信。 积极而言，可推动司法解释修订，强化证据审查。否则，将放大冤案风险，违背“全面依法治国”。陈京元的《狱中血书》呼吁法律回归公正。

结论

《刑法》和《刑诉法》规定为本案划定边界，揭示定罪程序双重违法，敦促司法严格适用，实现罪刑法定与程序正义。

English Section

Introduction

Article 293 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “Criminal Law”) defines the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, emphasizing acts that “disrupt social order,” extended to cyberspace by Article 5 of the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Defamation and Other Crimes Committed by Using Information Networks (hereinafter “Two Highs Interpretation”). The Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “CPL”) safeguards presumption of innocence (Article 12), evidence rules (Article 53), and procedural fairness (e.g., Article 118 on search, Article 188 on closed trials). In this case, Kunming judicial authorities convicted Chen Jingyuan for retweeting Twitter posts, involving missing elements and procedural violations, highlighting improper legal application. This analysis is based on these provisions.

Substantive Law Analysis: Deficiency in Elements of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble

  1. Subjective Element “Knowing Falsehood”: Article 14 of the Criminal Law requires intentional crimes to involve “knowing” facts and pursuing results. Article 5 of the Two Highs Interpretation specifies “knowingly spreading false information on information networks.” The verdict presumes “knowledge” via “high education = ability to discern right from wrong,” lacking direct evidence (e.g., confessions), violating subjective intent proof principles. Chen’s retweeting of public posts (e.g., U.S. embassy commentary) was academic expression, not “knowing” rumors.

  2. Objective Elements “False Information” and “Disrupting Social Order”: Article 293 of the Criminal Law requires “disrupting social order,” with Article 5 of the Two Highs Interpretation limiting to “causing serious public disorder.” Case evidence consists of browser cache images, without originals/additions, lacking thresholds (e.g., >5,000 forwards) or real events of disorder, failing to prove “falsity” or “disruption.” Improper application transforms it into a “thought crime.”

  3. Severity of Circumstances: No evidence of social harm, with a 1-year-8-month sentence exceeding catch-all use, violating proportionality (Article 5 of the Criminal Law).

Procedural Law Analysis: Multiple Violations

  1. Illegal Evidence Collection: Article 53 of the CPL requires “definite, full, and reliable evidence forming a chain,” and Article 118 mandates displaying a search warrant. Warrantless entry and torture for confessions (beatings for passwords) render evidence illegal, requiring exclusion (Article 54).

  2. Trial Procedure Flaws: Article 12 of the CPL establishes presumption of innocence, and Article 188 limits closed trials to secret cases. Presumptive guilt, closed hearing, denial of self-defense, and written second-instance review violate openness, fairness, and defense rights (Article 33).

Commentary

This case reveals abuse of the Criminal Law and CPL in online speech: “Picking quarrels” as a “pocket crime” with vague elements enables selective enforcement, eroding rule-of-law credibility. Positively, it can prompt revisions to judicial interpretations and stronger evidence scrutiny. Otherwise, it risks more miscarriages, contradicting “comprehensive rule of law.” Chen’s Prison Blood Letter calls for legal return to justice.

Conclusion

Provisions of the Criminal Law and CPL delineate boundaries for the case, exposing dual substantive and procedural illegality, urging strict application for legality of crimes and procedural justice.