Basic case
Defendants Ding and Sun concealed their company's weak operation ability and insolvency on the grounds of the existence of new business. They made false balance sheets to cheat Li's trust and asked him to provide bank loan guarantee. After not repaying the loan, Li's rice company assumed the guarantee responsibility and repaid the loan on behalf of 6.4 million yuan. The public prosecution agency filed a public prosecution with Ding and Sun for the crime of contract fraud. The court of first instance convicted Ding of contract fraud and sentenced him to 11 years in prison and a fine of 200000 yuan.

Case handling
Defendant Ding refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed, and entrusted our lawyer as his defense lawyer in the second instance. After accepting the entrustment, the defense lawyer first made a comprehensive review analysis of the first instance of the case, and conducted in-depth research on the evidence in the file, the prosecution logic of the public prosecution agency, and the work of the defense lawyer in the first instance. On this basis, the defense lawyer quickly worked out the work arrangement of the second instance defense: first of all, the appeal opinions were issued around the criminal composition of the crime of contract fraud and the doubtful points of the evidence in the file. Secondly, from the qualitative and quantitative problems of the judgment of the court of first instance, the harmful results of the behavior, the actual operation of the enterprise and other angles, the fine defense work is carried out.
In view of other problems found in the process of work, the defense lawyer actively applied for the court to obtain or obtained a number of evidence materials, such as recording, loan information, company's operation, etc., in an effort to protect the interests of the client to the greatest extent within the legal scope.

Case outcome
After accepting the case, the court of second instance formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing to hear the case. After trial, the court of second instance held that the facts of the original judgment were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and the litigation procedure was illegal, and ruled to revoke the original judgment and send it back for retrial. After the case was remanded for retrial, the public prosecution withdrew the prosecution. In the end, the public prosecution agency did not prosecute the case of Ding Moumou suspected of contract fraud.
 

Basic case
Defendants Ding and Sun concealed their company's weak operation ability and insolvency on the grounds of the existence of new business. They made false balance sheets to cheat Li's trust and asked him to provide bank loan guarantee. After not repaying the loan, Li's rice company assumed the guarantee responsibility and repaid the loan on behalf of 6.4 million yuan. The public prosecution agency filed a public prosecution with Ding and Sun for the crime of contract fraud. The court of first instance convicted Ding of contract fraud and sentenced him to 11 years in prison and a fine of 200000 yuan.

Case handling
Defendant Ding refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed, and entrusted our lawyer as his defense lawyer in the second instance. After accepting the entrustment, the defense lawyer first made a comprehensive review analysis of the first instance of the case, and conducted in-depth research on the evidence in the file, the prosecution logic of the public prosecution agency, and the work of the defense lawyer in the first instance. On this basis, the defense lawyer quickly worked out the work arrangement of the second instance defense: first of all, the appeal opinions were issued around the criminal composition of the crime of contract fraud and the doubtful points of the evidence in the file. Secondly, from the qualitative and quantitative problems of the judgment of the court of first instance, the harmful results of the behavior, the actual operation of the enterprise and other angles, the fine defense work is carried out.
In view of other problems found in the process of work, the defense lawyer actively applied for the court to obtain or obtained a number of evidence materials, such as recording, loan information, company's operation, etc., in an effort to protect the interests of the client to the greatest extent within the legal scope.

Case outcome
After accepting the case, the court of second instance formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing to hear the case. After trial, the court of second instance held that the facts of the original judgment were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and the litigation procedure was illegal, and ruled to revoke the original judgment and send it back for retrial. After the case was remanded for retrial, the public prosecution withdrew the prosecution. In the end, the public prosecution agency did not prosecute the case of Ding Moumou suspected of contract fraud.
 

Basic case
Defendants Ding and Sun concealed their company's weak operation ability and insolvency on the grounds of the existence of new business. They made false balance sheets to cheat Li's trust and asked him to provide bank loan guarantee. After not repaying the loan, Li's rice company assumed the guarantee responsibility and repaid the loan on behalf of 6.4 million yuan. The public prosecution agency filed a public prosecution with Ding and Sun for the crime of contract fraud. The court of first instance convicted Ding of contract fraud and sentenced him to 11 years in prison and a fine of 200000 yuan.

Case handling
Defendant Ding refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed, and entrusted our lawyer as his defense lawyer in the second instance. After accepting the entrustment, the defense lawyer first made a comprehensive review analysis of the first instance of the case, and conducted in-depth research on the evidence in the file, the prosecution logic of the public prosecution agency, and the work of the defense lawyer in the first instance. On this basis, the defense lawyer quickly worked out the work arrangement of the second instance defense: first of all, the appeal opinions were issued around the criminal composition of the crime of contract fraud and the doubtful points of the evidence in the file. Secondly, from the qualitative and quantitative problems of the judgment of the court of first instance, the harmful results of the behavior, the actual operation of the enterprise and other angles, the fine defense work is carried out.
In view of other problems found in the process of work, the defense lawyer actively applied for the court to obtain or obtained a number of evidence materials, such as recording, loan information, company's operation, etc., in an effort to protect the interests of the client to the greatest extent within the legal scope.

Case outcome
After accepting the case, the court of second instance formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing to hear the case. After trial, the court of second instance held that the facts of the original judgment were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and the litigation procedure was illegal, and ruled to revoke the original judgment and send it back for retrial. After the case was remanded for retrial, the public prosecution withdrew the prosecution. In the end, the public prosecution agency did not prosecute the case of Ding Moumou suspected of contract fraud.
 

Basic case
Defendants Ding and Sun concealed their company's weak operation ability and insolvency on the grounds of the existence of new business. They made false balance sheets to cheat Li's trust and asked him to provide bank loan guarantee. After not repaying the loan, Li's rice company assumed the guarantee responsibility and repaid the loan on behalf of 6.4 million yuan. The public prosecution agency filed a public prosecution with Ding and Sun for the crime of contract fraud. The court of first instance convicted Ding of contract fraud and sentenced him to 11 years in prison and a fine of 200000 yuan.

Case handling
Defendant Ding refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed, and entrusted our lawyer as his defense lawyer in the second instance. After accepting the entrustment, the defense lawyer first made a comprehensive review analysis of the first instance of the case, and conducted in-depth research on the evidence in the file, the prosecution logic of the public prosecution agency, and the work of the defense lawyer in the first instance. On this basis, the defense lawyer quickly worked out the work arrangement of the second instance defense: first of all, the appeal opinions were issued around the criminal composition of the crime of contract fraud and the doubtful points of the evidence in the file. Secondly, from the qualitative and quantitative problems of the judgment of the court of first instance, the harmful results of the behavior, the actual operation of the enterprise and other angles, the fine defense work is carried out.
In view of other problems found in the process of work, the defense lawyer actively applied for the court to obtain or obtained a number of evidence materials, such as recording, loan information, company's operation, etc., in an effort to protect the interests of the client to the greatest extent within the legal scope.

Case outcome
After accepting the case, the court of second instance formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing to hear the case. After trial, the court of second instance held that the facts of the original judgment were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and the litigation procedure was illegal, and ruled to revoke the original judgment and send it back for retrial. After the case was remanded for retrial, the public prosecution withdrew the prosecution. In the end, the public prosecution agency did not prosecute the case of Ding Moumou suspected of contract fraud.
 

Basic case
Defendants Ding and Sun concealed their company's weak operation ability and insolvency on the grounds of the existence of new business. They made false balance sheets to cheat Li's trust and asked him to provide bank loan guarantee. After not repaying the loan, Li's rice company assumed the guarantee responsibility and repaid the loan on behalf of 6.4 million yuan. The public prosecution agency filed a public prosecution with Ding and Sun for the crime of contract fraud. The court of first instance convicted Ding of contract fraud and sentenced him to 11 years in prison and a fine of 200000 yuan.

Case handling
Defendant Ding refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed, and entrusted our lawyer as his defense lawyer in the second instance. After accepting the entrustment, the defense lawyer first made a comprehensive review analysis of the first instance of the case, and conducted in-depth research on the evidence in the file, the prosecution logic of the public prosecution agency, and the work of the defense lawyer in the first instance. On this basis, the defense lawyer quickly worked out the work arrangement of the second instance defense: first of all, the appeal opinions were issued around the criminal composition of the crime of contract fraud and the doubtful points of the evidence in the file. Secondly, from the qualitative and quantitative problems of the judgment of the court of first instance, the harmful results of the behavior, the actual operation of the enterprise and other angles, the fine defense work is carried out.
In view of other problems found in the process of work, the defense lawyer actively applied for the court to obtain or obtained a number of evidence materials, such as recording, loan information, company's operation, etc., in an effort to protect the interests of the client to the greatest extent within the legal scope.

Case outcome
After accepting the case, the court of second instance formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing to hear the case. After trial, the court of second instance held that the facts of the original judgment were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and the litigation procedure was illegal, and ruled to revoke the original judgment and send it back for retrial. After the case was remanded for retrial, the public prosecution withdrew the prosecution. In the end, the public prosecution agency did not prosecute the case of Ding Moumou suspected of contract fraud.