论文部分内容阅读
2003年11月,青岛市中级法院认为乔红霞通过诉讼手段进行诈骗,骗取青岛澳柯玛公司财产,数额特别巨大,以诈骗罪判处乔红霞无期徒刑,剥夺政治权利终身。而在此之前,甘肃地区法院以乔红霞胜诉,判决澳柯玛公司赔偿乔红霞1557万元。为什么同一个案件,两地法院会作出截然不同的判决?乔红霞是应该获得赔偿还是罪有应得?作为当事人一方的澳柯玛公司日前向中央及首都新闻媒体讲述了案件的前后经过。
In November 2003, Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court held that Qiao Hongxia defrauds through litigation and cheats the property of Qingdao Aucma Co., in a particularly large amount. He sentenced Qiao Hongxia to life imprisonment and deprived them of their political rights for life for fraud. Prior to this, Gansu District Court won the case of Qiao Hongxia, ruled that Aucma compensation 15.65 million yuan Qiao Hongxia. Why did courts in both places make entirely different judgments in the same case? Should Qia Hongxia obtain compensation or be found guilty? On a party-by-party basis, Aucma told the central and capital news media a few days ago about the case.