Documents‎ > ‎China‎ > ‎Case Law‎ > ‎

Huang Qi 2001 Criminal Judgment Incitement of Subversion and Separatism

Adobe Acrobat PDF version


The English translation is by William Farris and was first published on February 12, 2009 at www.feichangdao.com/documents and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License. License terms are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0. When attributing please include the translator's name and the following link: http://www.feichangdao.com.


Intermediate People's Court of Chengdu, Sichuan

Criminal Judgment

(2001) Cheng Criminal First Instance Judgment No. 49

The public prosecuting agency was the People's Procurotorate of Chengdu, Sichuan

Defendant Huang Qi (online pseudonym: Nan Bo), male, born April 7, 1963 in Neijiang, Sichuan, Han ethnicity, college degree, resided at 31-1-44 Tuojiang Road, Neijiang, Sichuan, currently residing at No. 51, Renmin Zhong Road, Chengdu. On June 5, 2000, he was placed under criminal detention in connection with this case, and on July 12 of the same year the Chengdu Public Security Bureau  arrested him on suspicion of inciting subversion of the national regime pursuant to an authorization from the Chengdu People's Procuratorate. He is currently being held in the Chengdu No. 1 Detention Center.

Defense attorney Gao Xiaoping, a lawyer at the Sichuan Jianshe Law Firm.

Defense attorney Fan Jun, a lawyer at the Sichuan Deyang Jinxiu Law Firm.

The People's Procuratorate of Chengdu, Sichuan charged the defendant Huang Qi with the crime of inciting subversion of the national regime in Chengdu Procuratorate First Criminal Indictment (2001)4, and filed the indictment with this court on January 11, 2001. This court constituted a collegiate panel in accordance with the law and, pursuant to the provisions of article 152 of the "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," tried this case in closed court. The People's Procuratorate of Chengdu, Sichuan appointed acting procurators Liu Jianqiang and Su Huaqiang to appear in court in support of the indictment. Defendant Huang Qi and his defense attorneys Gao Xiaoping and Fan Jun were in court to participate in the trial. Hearings in this case have now concluded.

The People's Procuratorate of Chengdu, Sichuan charged that from March to June of 2000, defendant Huang Qi established sections on his "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" home page like "Trends Forum," "Recovered From the Web," and "Viewing China From Afar." In "Trends Forum" he posted articles such as: "Guiding Principles of the China Democracy Party" and "The Mentality Behind Xinjiang Uighur Independence: Because Historically We Have Always Been an Independent Country." In "Recovered From the Web" he compiled and disseminated articles such as: "An Unpredictable Future for China" and "June Fourth Was Neither an Incident Nor a Disturbance, It Was a Massacre." "Viewing China From Afar" linked to information from abroad published by the Information Center for China Human Rights & Democracy such as: "Two Citizens Demand Redress for Those Arrested on June Fourth" and "Amnesty International: 236 June Fourth Political Criminals Imprisoned."

In order to prove the facts of the crime charged, the public prosecution authority cited the following evidence in court: a list of the evidence obtained by public security authorities from the "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" website using Huang Qi's computer; an electronic physical evidence verification certificate from the Sichuan Public Security Office; testimony from witnesses Zeng Li, Zeng Hong, Zeng Quanfu, Liu Honghai, and Li Yu; an enterprise Internet access contract signed by the Chengdu Tianwang Disappeared Persons Service Center and the Chengdu Huamei Computer Network Limited Company; Huang Qi's statement made at the public security authority. Public prosecution authorities  believe that the defendant Huang Qi's acts constitute the crimes of inciting separatism and inciting subversion of the national regime, and that he should be sentenced in accordance with articles 103, 105, and 69 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.

Defendant Huang Qi denies the criminal facts charged by the Chengdu People's Procuratorate, arguing that the articles in the "Trends Forum" section were posted by other people, and remained online because he did not understand the delete function. He only takes responsibility for articles on the "Recovered From the Web," and "Viewing China From Afar" sections prior to March 30, 2000, because after March 30, 2000 the website had been shut down within China and transferred to a Chinese individual in North America to manage to find missing relatives. 

Defendant Huang Qi's defense attorneys claim that public security authorities have no evidence of when or with what computer Huang Qi disseminated the aforementioned articles of which he is accused, and at the same time point out that Huang Qi has freedom of speech, and may disseminate his views with respect to a given incident. 

Based on hearings this court has ascertained that, at the end of 1998, defendant Huang Qi opened the "Chengdu Tianwang Disappeared Persons Service Center" in Chengdu, and assumed the position of legal representative. On June 14, 1999, that agency used the "Chengdu Huamei Computer Network Limited Company" to register a website online named "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" with the domain name www.6-4tianwang.com. It set up sections such as "Broadcasts of Injustice," "Judicial News," "Government Online Events," "Collections of Calls," "Search for People for Free," Viewing China From Afar," "Recovered From the Web," and "Trends Forum." Huang Qi was responsible for the website's security and for producing and updating the home page. Since March 2000, articles were posted on the "Trends Forum" section of the "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" website's home page such as: "Guiding Principles of the China Democracy Party" (April 28, 2000), "Constitution of the China Democracy Party" (May 26, 2000), "Text of the China Democracy Party's Speech on the Eleventh Anniversary of 'June Fourth'" (June 3, 2000), "The Mentality Behind Xinjiang Uighur Independence: Because Historically We Have Always Been an Independent Country" (March 15, 2000), "What Was Rebiya Kadeer's Crime?" (March 14, 2000), "Falun Gong Members Arrested While Protesting" (May 29, 2000), and "The 'June Fourth' Video Can be Viewed Directly Online" (May 29, 2000). On June 3, 2000, articles were compiled and published on the "Compilations From the Net" section of the "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" website's home page such as: "The Future of China is Unpredictable," "June Fourth was Neither an Incident Nor a Disturbance, It Was a Massacre," and "People at Home and Abroad Use 'Trends Forum' to Commemorate 'June Fourth'." On June 2, 2000, the "Viewing China From Afar" section of the "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" website's home page linked to information published by the Information Center for China Human Rights & Democracy such as: "Two Citizens Demand Redress for Those Arrested on June Fourth" and "Amnesty International: 236 June Fourth Political Criminals Imprisoned." The aforementioned articles used rumormongering and defamation to incite subversion of the national regime and the overthrow of the socialist system. After the crime was exposed, Huang Qi was taken into custody on June 3, 2000 by public security authorities to be brought to justice. 

The aforementioned facts were submitted by the public prosecuting authorities, and the evidence confronted and verified by the court confirms:

1. The evidence list obtained from the "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" website by public security authorities using Huang Qi's computer confirms that Huang Qi posted the aforementioned articles on the "Trends Forum" section of the "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" website's home page.

2. Email correspondence that public security authorities obtained from Huang Qi's computer while conducting a search of his workplace confirms Huang Qi had previously received the following emails: (1) On May 17, 2000, at 22:31 with subject "How Are You Predicting Mainland China's Future" sent from brims; (2) On May 21, 2000, at 23:46 with the subject "Let's see how you handle this," with the content "'June Fourth' victims' families' plea" sent from J; (3) On June 2, 2000, at 17:07 with the subject "June Fourth Was Neither an Incident Nor a Disturbance, It Was a Massacre" sent from Zhang San. At the same time, Huang Qi sent the following emails: (1) On May 18, 2000, at 15:59 with the subject "Reply" with the reply recipient Nan Bo; (2) On May 22, 2000, at 14:27 with the subject "Reply: Let's see how you handle this" with the reply recipient Nan Bo; (3) On June 2, 2000, at 23:05 with the subject "Reply: June Fourth Was Neither an Incident Nor a Disturbance, It Was a Massacre" with the reply recipient Nan Bo.

3. The Sichuan Public Security Office's electronic physical evidence verification certificate confirms that two sets of material "What was Rebeiya Kadeer's Crime?" (March 14, 2000) and "The Mentality Behind Xinjiang Uighur Independence: Because Historically We Have Always Been an Indpendent Country" (March 15, 2000) submitted for inspection by the Chendu Public Security Bureau were traced to and retrieved from the "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" website.

4. An enterprise Internet access contract signed on June 4, 1999 by the Chengdu Tianwang Disappeared Persons Service Center and the Chengdu Huamei Computer Network Limited Company.

5. The testimony of witness Zeng Li confirms: In 1998, Huang Qi and I applied to establish the Tianwang Agency, with Huang Qi as the legal representative. In 1999, we went online to establish the "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" website, and in the beginning Huang Qi didn't understand computers, and the Huamei Company was responsible for providing three months of training. Huang Qi was responsible for the website, and he handled all the operations and security, and every morning at 11 he went online and downloaded the content he wanted from domestic and foreign newspapers, and every afternoon at six he accessed other websites again, and downloaded the content he needed, and then he combined this content to produce the Tianwang home page. After he had produced sections such as "Broadcasts of Injustice," "Recovered from the Web," "Viewing China from Afar," and "Trends Forum" sections, around eight at night he would begin sending them out via the Huamei Computer Network Company, and would not finish until eleven or twelve in the evening. On March 30, the website was shut down, and afterwards he would use the server of an overseas company to get back online, and it was still Huang Qi alone who was handling the security, and the process was the same as before, except that after completing production, he would send it to the overseas server, and used it to disseminate the content, and the content was edited and updated by Huang Qi, and it was like this every day.

6. Witness Zeng Hong's testimony confirms: the Tianwang Agency operated an "Outcry" website, which Huang Qi was responsible for, and that he was the only one who understood computers, and generally he only left at noon or at nine or ten or later in the evening. He was responsible for producing and transmitting materials about missing people, and in addition he reposted news from some newspapers and magazines online, which he transmitted daily.

7. Witness Zeng Quanfu's testimony confirms: because of a labor dispute I asked the Tianwang Agency for assistance. There were three official staff members, Zeng Li was the head, and Huang Qi and Zeng Hong worked there. The three of them divided up the work, with Zeng Li and Zeng Hong being responsible for looking for and contacting missing persons and contacting relevant agencies, and Huang Qi being responsible for the network and computers. He was the only one who understood how to operate a computer, and he disseminated news online, produced news, and produced web pages.

8. The testimony of witness Liu Honghai confirms: in October 1999, I was introduced to the "Chengdu Tianwang Disappeared Persons Service Center" by a classmate. I mainly helped Huang Qi with computer security and taught him how to produce web pages. At the time Huang Qi, Zeng Li, and Zeng Hong were at the agency. I only knew that the main business of the website was finding missing persons, and that it was helping petitioners put their complaints online.

9. Testimony of witness Li Yu confirms that he had previously provided Huang Qi with knowledge and guidance on web page production.

10. The statements of defendant Huang Qi to public security authorities and at trial.

The aforementioned evidence was lawfully obtained, is objective and truthful, is factually relevant to this case, has been submitted, confronted and verified at trial, and is accepted by this court as credible.

This court finds that defendant Huang Qi used the Internet to disseminate and spread articles about such issues as "democracy movements," "June Fourth," and "Falun Gong," and that his actions of utilizing rumormongering and defamation to incite subversion of the national regime and the overthrow China's socialist system constitutes the crime of inciting subversion of the national regime and should be punished in accordance with the law. The facts charged in the indictment of the People's Procuratorate of Chengdu, Sichuan that defendant Huang Qi committed the crime of inciting subversion of the national regime have been established, the application of the law is correct, and the charges should therefore be sustained. 

With respect to public prosecution authority's charge that defendant Huang Qi committed the crime of inciting separatism, this court finds that Huang Qi's website's electronic forum had articles with contents that promoted ethnic separatism that were posted by him, and that as the person responsible for the website, Huang Qi had a strong duty to delete these articles but failed to do so. However, these articles were not initially produced, edited, or disseminated by him, and there is no evidence that Huang Qi's goal was to incite separatism. This court therefore does not sustain this charge. 

With respect to defendant Huang Qi's claim that he was only responsible for articles appearing on "Viewing China From Afar" and "Recovered From the Web" prior to March 30, 2000, after an investigation, based on the Xi'an evidence it can be confirmed that from March 30, 2000 until the crimes were exposed, the articles posted on the "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" website's "Viewing China From Afar," and "Recovered From the Web" were compiled, edited, and disseminated by Huang Qi. With respect to the position of defendant Huang Qi and his defense attorneys that public security authorities have no evidence proving when, where, or from which computer Huang Qi disseminated the articles charged above, this court finds that the party making the charges has collected a large quantity of corroborating evidence in this case, which forms a complete evidentiary chain that confirms that the articles relating to inciting subversion of the national regime posted on the "Tianwang Disappeared Persons" website were Huang Qi's. This court therefore does not accept these claims of the defense. 

The defense attorneys also offer the view that Huang Qi has freedom of speech, and may freely disseminate his views with respect to given incident. This court findds that freedom of speech is a political right of the citizens of China, but when exercising this right, they may not jeopardize the country's interests and security, and may not use rumormongering or defamation to incite subversion of national regime. This court therefore does not accept the defense's view, which only emphasizes the rights of the defendant, and ignores his duties. 

Based on the facts of the crime that defendant Huang Qi has committed, the nature of the crime, and the circumstances and degree of harm caused to society, pursuant to the provisions of articles 105(2), 55(1), and 56(1) of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, this court holds as follows:

Defendant Huang Qi committed the crime of inciting subversion of national regime, and is sentenced to five years imprisonment with one year deprivation of political rights (the sentence to be calculated as commencing from the date of the execution of this judgment, with one day of the sentence to be offset for each day of detention prior to the execution of this judgment, that is from June 5, 2000 to June 4, 2005).

If the defendant does not accept this judgment, he may file an appeal with this court or directly with the High People's Court of Sichuan between the second and tenth day from the day after he receives the judgment document. A written appeal should be submitted with one original and two copies.

Presiding Judge Qing Hui
Judge Li Hua
Deputy Judge Bing Zhu

February 22, 2003

Clerk Qi Lin

Translator's notes:
  • The formatting of the Chinese original has been changed to improve readability. 
  • Comments and suggestions welcome: infoatfeichangdaodotcom.


四川省成都市中级人民法院

刑事判决书

(2001)成刑初字第49号

公诉机关四川省成都市人民检察院

被告人黄琦(网上笔名:难博),男,1963年4月7日出生于四川省内江市,汉族,文化程度大学,住四川省内江市沱江路31-1-44,现住成都市人民中路51号。2000年6月5日因本案被刑事拘留,同年7月12日因涉嫌煽动颠覆国家政权罪,经成都市人民检察院批准,由成都市公安局执行逮捕。现羁押于成都市第一看守所。

辩护人高筱平,四川建设律师事务所律师。

辩护人范军,四川德阳锦绣律师事务所律师。

四川省成都市人民检察院以成检刑一诉字(2001)第4号起诉书,指控被告人黄琦犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪,于2001年1月11日向本院提起公诉。本院依法组成合议庭,根据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第152条的规定,不公开开庭审理了本案。四川省成都市人民检察院指指派代理检察员刘建强、苏华强出庭支持公诉,被告人黄琦及其辩护人高筱平,范军均到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

四川省成都市人民检察院指控,2000年3月至6月,被告人黄琦及其开办的"天网寻人"网站主页设置"走向论坛"、"网海拾遗"、"遥看中华"等栏目。在"走向论坛"栏目登载《中国民主党纲领》、《新疆维吾尔人的独立意识:因为历史上我们一直是个独立的国家》等文章;在"网海拾遗"栏目收集发表《可也不可预测的大陆将来》、《六、四不是事件,不是风波,是屠杀》等文章;在"遥看中华"栏目中外国链接"中国人权民运信息中心"发布的"两公民要求平反六、四被捕"、"大赦国际:213名六、四政治犯被关押"等信息。

公诉机关为证明所指控的犯罪事实,当庭举出了如下证据:公安机关通过黄琦的电脑在"天网寻人"网站查获的证据清单;四川省公安厅的电子物证鉴定表;证人曾俐、曾洪、曾全富、刘洪海、李昱的证词;成都天网寻人咨询服务事务所与成都华美计算机网络有限公司签订的企业上网合同;黄琦在公安机关的供述。公诉机关认为,被告人黄琦的行为已经构成煽动分裂国家政权罪、煽动颠覆国家政权罪,应当依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第103条、105条、第69条的规定予以处刑。

被告人黄琦对四川省成都市人民检察院起诉指控的犯罪事实予以否认,辩称"走向论坛"栏目中的文章系他人所张贴,因自己不懂删除功能而一起直留在网上;自办栏目"网海拾遗"、"遥看中华"中的文章,自己只对2000年3月30日以前的负责,因2000年3月30日该网站被国内关闭后,已交给北美华人寻亲会管理。

被告人黄琦的辩护人提出公安机关无证据证实黄琦何时何地通过哪台计算机在网上发表上述被指控的文章,同时指出黄琦有言论自由,可以对某一事件发表自己的看法。

经审理查明,1998年底,被告人黄琦在成都市开办"成都天网寻人咨询服务事务所",并担任法人代表。1999年6月14日,该事务所通过"成都华美计算机网络有限公司"注册上网,网站名为"天网寻人",域名为www.6-4tianwang.com,内设"冤情联播"、"司法新闻"、"官方网事"、"呐喊专集"、"免费寻人"、"遥看中华""网海拾遗"和"走向论坛"等栏目,由黄琦负责网站的维护和主页的制作,更新工作。2000年3月以来,黄琦在"天网寻人"网站主页的"走向论坛"栏目中登载有《中国民主党政治纲领》(2000年4月28日)、《中国民主党章程》(2000年5月26日)、《中国民主党"六、四"十一周年宣讲词》(2000年6月3日)、《新疆维吾尔人的独立意识:因为历史上我们一直是一个独立的国家》(2000年3月15日)、《热比亚何罪之有?》(2000年3月14日),《法轮功学员示威被拘捕》(2000年5月29日)、《"六、四"影带,网上可以直接看》(2000年5月29日)等文章;2000年6月3日在"天网寻人"网站主页的"网海拾遗"栏目中收集发表有《可也不可预测的大陆将来》、《六、四不是事件,不是风波、是屠杀》、《海内外各方通过"走向论坛"纪念"六、四"》等文章;2000年6月2日,在"天网寻人"网站主页"遥看中华"栏目中链接"中国人权民运信息中心"发布的《两公民要求平反六、四被捕》、《大赦国际:213名六、四政治犯被关押》等信息。上述文章以造谣、诽谤方式煽动颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度。案发后,黄琦于2000年6月3日被公安机关抓获归案。

上述事实,有检察机关提交,并经法庭质证、认证的证据予以证实:

1、公安机关在案发后通过黄琦的电脑在"天网寻人"网站查获的证据清单,证实黄琦在"天网寻人"网站主页的"走向论坛"栏目中登载有上述文章。

2、公安机关在对黄琦的办公地点进行搜查时,从其电脑中查获的往来电子邮件,证实黄琦曾收到过以下邮件:(1)2000年5月17日22:31主题"你是如何预测大陆的将来",发件人brims;(2)2000年5月21日23:46,主题"看你如何处理",内容为"六、四"难属呼吁书,发件人J;(3)2000年6月2日17:07,主题"六、四不是事件,不是风波,是屠杀",发件人张三。同时,黄琦曾发出以下邮件:(1)2000年5月18日15:59,主题"回复",回件人难博;(2)2000年5月22日14:27,主题"回复:看你如何处理",回件人难博;(3)2000年6月2日23:05分,主题"回复六、四不是事件,不是风波,是屠杀",回件人难博。

3、四川省公安厅的电子物证鉴定表,证实成都市公安局所送检的《热比亚何罪之有?》(2000年3月14日)、《新疆维吾尔人的独立意识:因为历史上我们一直是一个独立的国家》(2000年3月15日)两份材料系从"天网寻人"网站上查获并提取。

4、成都天网寻人咨询服务事务所与成都华美计算机网络有限公司于1999年6月4日签订的企业上网合同。

5、证人曾俐的证言证实,我与黄琦于1998年申请成立了天网事务所,法人代表是黄琦。1999年上网成立"天网寻人"网站,黄琦原来不懂电脑,是华美公司负责培训了三个月的时间。网站由黄琦负责,由他一个人在操作维护,每天早上11点钟上网,从境内外报纸上下载想要的内容,下午6点钟又访问其他网站,下载所需内容,然后把这些内容组合起来,制作成天网的主页,有"冤情联播"、"网海拾遗"、"遥看中华""走向论坛"等栏目,制作好后,晚上八九点钟开始通过华美计算机网络公司发出去,要晚上十一二点才完成。3月30日,网站被关闭,后通过境外一个公司的服务器重新上网,还是黄琦独自在维护,过程和以前一样,只是在制作好后,就发给这个境外服务器,通过它发出去,内容都是黄琦在编辑,更新,每天如此。

6、证人曾洪的证言证实,天网事务所搞了一个"呐喊"网站,由黄琦负责,电脑只有他一个人懂,他一般是中午,晚上九十点或更晚才走,他负责制作和发送寻人资料,除此之外,他还在网上转载一些报刊、杂志上的新闻等内容,每天发送。

7、证人曾全富的证言证实,我因劳务纠纷一事找到天网事务所求助,所上有正式职员三人,所长是曾俐,工作人员是黄琦和曾洪,三人的分工为曾俐和曾洪负责寻人,联系寻人业务,与有关部门打交道,黄琦负责网络电脑,只有他懂得电脑的使用,他在网上发布新闻,制作新闻,制作网页。

8、证人刘洪海的证言证实,1999年10月,我通过同学介绍到"成都天网寻人事务所",主要是帮助黄琦维护计算机,教他制作网页的知识,当时事务所有黄琦、曾俐和曾洪。我只知道该网站主要业务是寻人,还有就是帮一些上访人员在网上喊冤。

9、证人李昱的证言证实,曾对黄琦进行过网页制作方面知识的辅导。

10、被告人黄琦在公安机关及庭审中的供述。

以上证据来源合法,客观真实,且与本案有事实关联,经庭审举证、质证和认证,本院予以采信。

本院认为,被告人黄琦通过互联网散布传播有关"民运"、"六、四"、"法轮功"等方面的文章,采取造谣、诽谤的方式煽动颠覆国家政权、推翻我国社会主义制度的行为已构成煽动颠覆国家政权罪,应依法予以惩处。四川省成都市人民检察院起诉指控被告人黄琦所犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪的事实成立,定性正确,应予支持。

关于公诉机关对黄琦煽动分裂国家政权罪的指控,本院认为,黄琦网站电子公告栏目中具有宣扬民族分裂内容的文章系他人所张贴,黄琦作为网站的负责人虽有义务对该文进行删除而未予删除,但该文并非其主动制作、编辑、发布,且现尚无证据证明黄琦具有煽动分裂国家的目的,故对此指控,本院不予支持。

关于被告人黄琦提出自办栏目"遥看中华"、"网海拾遗"中的文章,自已只对2000年3月30日以前负责的辩解,经查,根据西安的证据可以证实2000年3月30日以后至案发时,"天网寻人"网站自办"遥看中华"、"网海拾遗"中所登载的文章,是由黄琦编辑发布的。

被告人黄琦及其辩护人提出公安机关无证据证明黄琦何时何地通过哪台计算机在网上发表上述指控文章的观点,本院认为,控方收集在案的大量证据彼此关联,并形成一个完整的证据锁链,可以证实互联网上"天网寻人"网站所刊登的有关煽动颠覆国家政权的文章是黄琦所为,因此,对辩护人的这一辩护意见,本院不予采纳。

另,辩护人提出黄琦有言论自由,可以对某一事件自由发表自己看法这一观点,本院认为,言论自由是我国公民的一项政治权利,但在行使该权利时,不得损害国家利益和安全,不得采取造谣、诽谤的方式煽动颠覆国家政权。因此,辩护人只强调被告人的权利而忽视其义务的观点,本院予采纳。

本院根据被告人黄琦犯罪的事实、犯罪的性质、情节和对于社会的危害程度,依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第105条第2款、第55条第1款、第56条第1款之规定,判决如下:

被告人黄琦犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪,判处有期徒刑五年,剥夺政治权利一年。(刑期从判决执行之日起计算。判决执行以前先行羁押的,羁押一日折抵刑期一日,即自2000年6月5日起至2005年6月4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四川省高级人民法院提出上诉。书面上诉的,应当提交上诉状正本一份,副本二份。

审判长 青晖
审判员 李华
代理审判员 朱兵

二00三年二月二十二日

书记员 戚琳 
Comments