The villagers threw poisonous corn in their own fields, causing 9 sheep to die and were sentenced to probation! Why did the villager do this?

The villager was often eaten by sheep because of his medicinal materials, and then he scattered corn soaked in pesticides on the ground and set up warning signs on both sides of the road. Finally, nine sheep came, ate poisonous corn and died! Be asked to go to court!

Let's see what the law says.

1. Conviction in this case

In this case, Yang not only committed the act of releasing dangerous goods, but also killed nine sheep. Although it was put on his own land and two warning signs were placed, because the land was open, Yang knew that sheep often came to steal food, so it was obviously not enough to put only two warning signs to rule out the danger of harm to unspecified livestock (important property of others). Therefore, in this case, it is found that the crime of throwing dangerous goods conforms to the law.

2. Judgment on this case.

The reason why Yang Can was sentenced to less than the statutory penalty is that he was summoned to the case and truthfully confessed. Is it in line with the law? Take the initiative to handle the case? And then what? Confess truthfully? If two conditions are met, it belongs to surrender, and surrender is a legal situation that can be lightened or mitigated. In this case, the statutory penalty starts from three years, and the actual penalty is one and a half years, with a suspended sentence of two years. This is a mitigated punishment, not just a lighter punishment. Legally, only a lighter punishment can break through the statutory punishment, and the lighter punishment can only be within the lower limit of the statutory punishment, but it cannot break through the statutory punishment.

Therefore, if Yang didn't turn himself in, even if he compensated for the loss and got an understanding, it was impossible to sentence him to less than three years, because compensation for the loss and understanding only mitigated the circumstances as appropriate, not the circumstances. In other words, if Yang didn't come to the case voluntarily after being summoned or didn't truthfully confess after being summoned, according to the current allegations, even if he compensated the owner of the sheep and made an understanding, he would face at least three years' imprisonment (probation may be applicable). If so, do you think he is more wronged?

3. The warning significance of this case to the world.

What if the crops are destroyed by livestock?

Yang was originally the victim. Because of his improper methods, he not only lost his property, but also was investigated for criminal responsibility. Really? Rational changed unreasonable? .

This case also warns people:

On the one hand, when encountering similar situations, you can keep good evidence. According to the relevant provisions of China's Civil Code, the owner of the damaged land can completely request to stop the infringement, remove the obstruction and compensate for the losses.

On the other hand, even if you want to put toxic substances in your crops and fields, you should take adequate safety precautions. In addition to warning signs, you should also take measures such as fencing or squatting to prevent the tragedy from happening again.