The full text of the appeal paper of Ms. Shuang Shuying

China Aid Association
Petition for Appeal on a Criminal Case

Petitioner: Shuang Shuying.  She was born in Beijing on October 29, 1931.  She is of Manchurian Nationality and is an illiterate person.  She is a retiree from Beijing Textile Apparatus Factory.  At this time, she is temporarily residing at 21, Shatushan Street, Chongwen District, Beijing.  (Household registration is filed at: 28, Nanguanyuan Alley, Chongwen District, Beijing).  She was released upon bail pending trial on February 7, 2007 on suspicion of intentional destruction of properties.  She was arrested on February 9 of the same year.
The petitioner does not accept the criminal verdict of intentional destruction of properties issued by Chongwen District People’s Court of Beijing Municipality on February 26, 2007—(2007) Chong Xing Chu Zi No. 00087.  Now, she is appealing the verdict.
Request of the appeal: It is requested that the criminal verdict (2007) Chong Xing Chu Zi No. 00087 by Chongwen District People’s Court of Beijing Municipality be repealed and that it rule the petitioner is not guilty.
Grounds for Appeal.
I.  Facts were insufficient as evidence in the verdict by the court of first trial. 
The evidence affirmed by the court of first trial that the petitioner intentionally destroyed properties is neither sufficient nor firmly established.  The evidence contains obvious flaws.
First of all, the petitioner, as a party in this case, never admitted that she destroyed the hood of the Sonata sedan and the Jinque numerically controlled touch-screen.  There was no need for the petitioner to destroy the above-mentioned properties.
Second, judging from the video materials presented by the court, the Jinque numerically controlled touch-screen was still working properly, completely contrary to the conclusion affirmed by the court of first instance that it “could not be used.”  Obviously, the conclusion made by the court of first trial does not agree at all with the evidence presented by the prosecutor.
Third, the evidence affirmed by the court does not agree with the result of the damage and therefore contains many questionable points. The expert’s statement concluded that there were 1.5 cm cracks in the upper left corner, upper right corner, and the lower right corner of the screen.  The most valuable part of the numerically controlled touch-screen is not in the touch screen itself, but in the control system on the back. The whole system can be functional once the faulty touch screen is replaced.  However, the court believes the value of the screen is equal to the value of the system, which is obviously a violation of the facts.  The expert’s conclusion on the price of the property affirmed by the court is only an appraisal on the price of the property in perfect working order, not an appraisal of the damage or the remaining value of the property.  It is a violation of basic common sense to think the value of the screen equals to that of the entire numerically controlled touch screen system without confirming that the entire system is completely non-functional.  It’s just like thinking that the value of a computer monitor equals to that of the entire computer system.
Fourth, as for the charge by the prosecutor, the witnesses provided by the prosecutors are all those who have a conflict of interests with the petitioner and who are hostile or have biases against the petitioner.  They always think the petitioner should be punished and the fairness of their charges against the petitioners is under question.  According to the requirement that the evidence be objective and fair, the testimonies of these people cannot be used as evidence.  However, the conviction in this case is entirely dependent on the above-mentioned testimonies which violate fairness.
II.  The penalty dealt out in this case is too severe and violates the principle of socialist humanitarianism.
A petitioner nearly 80 years old tried to see the authorities to appeal for help and could not enjoy bliss of a family life.  There must be a reason for this.  Isn’t our society responsible for this?  Instead of showing care for a wronged, elderly woman in poor health to demonstrate the humanitarian love characteristic of the socialist system, the society sends the person to two years in prison.  This not only violates the humanitarianism demonstrated by the laws under socialism, it also fails to meet the requirement that the management function of law should reduce the economic cost.  Therefore, from the humanitarian perspective, the penalty on the petitioner is inappropriate.
In summary, the action of the petitioner does not constitute the crime of intentional destruction of property.  The verdict by the first court is not based on facts and legal grounds and therefore the conviction is wrong and the penalty is inappropriate.  Therefore, the petitioner requests that the court of appeal repeal the verdict by the court of first trial and rule the petitioner not guilty handling the case with  humanitarian concerns.
To: Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court.
Petitioner: Shuang Shuying
March 8, 2007