村干部职务犯罪案例分析.doc

村干部职务犯罪案例分析.docprosecution thinks that it should be identified by the total amount of the crime, because in
accordance with the relevant provisions, the individual amount of the corruption should be
understood the amount that he has obtained from the action that he has joined, anized
or has directed the joint corruption. According to the principle of "guilt conceit", the defender
thinks that he can not be liable for the fault of the other plices. The court upheld the
prosecution's view. Thirdly, against the problem that who should bear the burden of proof to
prove whether the defendant has used the nine thousand Yuan to give the leader to ensure the
grants, the prosecution believes that the defense opinion is proposed by the defendant, so the
burden of proof is his own. But the defendant thinks that he has been in custody, lack the
ability to prove, so it should be the prosecution to investigate. The court held that after the
trial the prosecution pleted his burden of proof to prove the defendant is guilt, so for
the defense opinion of the defendant should himself to prove. Finally, for the problem that
how to identify the action that the defendant embezzles 35 thousand of the pensation fee and the ground pensation fee, the prosecution thinks the
action of management of this grants of the mittee cadres is to help the government
manage the pensation fee according to the (d) of the Article 93 (2) of the Criminal
Code. mittee cadres are "the other people engaged in official business according the
law”. It should be embezzlement crime of public funds. But the defendant believes that the
behavior of the management of the money of the mittee actually is a kind of agent
behavior, just a proxy of the government management. So his behavior can only be identified
as a tort. After the trial, the court believes that the mittee has told the villagers the
way to allocate this fund, and that the villagers have been aware of their rights. So the nature
of this fund has been converted personal pro