欺诈罪英文

英文的 Liaocheng City Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province Administrative Judgment (2000) final word chat line No. 57 Appellant (plaintiff): YAO Hua-ping, male August 1962, Han nationality, primary school education, a farmer living in the town of Yao Guan water line village . Attorney: Gerun Min, Dongchangfu Centre law firm lawyers. Attorney: Xing Tianhua, occupation ibid. Appellee (the trial the defendant): Guan Shimizu Town People's Government. Legal representative: Yue Qixiang, the town mayor. Attorney: Yinru Kui, director of the Institute of Justice Guan town water. YAO Hua-ping Appellant v. agriculture due to an administrative enforcement case against Guan County People's Court (1999) Crown Chu Zi No. 161 line administrative judgment, this Court appeal. Court shall form a collegial panel conducted a hearing on the case, has been concluded. The case was Guan County People's Court found that: 1998 lunar after early May, the defendant Guan Shimizu Town People's Government of the plaintiff Yao Hua-Ping refused to pay agricultural summer levy on the grounds, forcing the plaintiff Yao Hua-ping tractor seizure to the village DU Xue-gong home, its administrative behavior no legal basis, the Court will not support. YAO Hua-ping the complaint the plaintiff its toolbox in cash of $ 10,000 no evidence, the Court inadmissible. Accordance with the "PRC Administrative Procedure Law" Article 54 (b) the provisions of Sections 3, 4 head, Guan County People's Court on December 22, 1999 verdict: First, remove the accused Guan Shimizu Town People's Government seizure of the plaintiff Yao Ping tractor administrative enforcement actions; Second, limit defendants Guan Shimizu Town People's Government after the effective date of this judgment the plaintiff returned within five days of Ping Yao tractor; Third, YAO Hua-ping dismissed the plaintiff's other claims. Case acceptance fee of 400 yuan, the defendant Guan Shimizu Town People's Government. Appellant first instance verdict against YAO Hua-ping to Guan County People's Court (1999) Crown Chu Zi No. 161 line administrative judgments facts unclear, erroneous judgment appealed on the ground, requesting the court commuted by law. Be appealed to the town of Guan County People's Government of the respondent said Shimizu, the trial court found that the facts are clear, legal procedures, the applicable law is correct, the judgment properly, please maintain the second instance court ruling. Guan County Court against appellee Shimizu Town People's Government in the first instance to submit a review of the evidence, cross-examination. People appellee town water main evidence submitted by the Government are: 1, LI Feng-Mei's record of investigation; 2, Li Chunling testimony; 3, the survey Du Jifeng transcripts; 4, Li Chunze investigation transcripts, more evidence have proved appellant Yao Hua-ping tractor toolbox There is no cash. 5, the survey Li Shuling, Chenren Xiang transcripts; 6, the survey Fan Yuling transcripts are proof of Ping Yao tractor appellant detained in Du learn the exercises at home. The appellant's agent YAO Hua-Ping Guan water for appellee Town People's Government to challenge the evidence and submit the following evidence: 1, DU Xue-gong conversation transcripts; 2, Xu asked to record peak; 3, Du Yue et al testimony. These evidence have proved appellee Guan Shimizu Town People's Government staff on May 1, 1998 to force the appellant Yao Hua-Ping Du tractor seizure to learn the exercises home, do not pay to hold the tractor. Court finds that: appellee Guan Shimizu Town People's Government in 1998 lunar calendar May 1, YAO Hua-ping the appellant refused to pay the levy on the grounds of Agriculture summer, forcing the appellant Yao Hua-ping tractor power house arrest to learn the fact that DU can be identified . No legal basis for the administrative act is an offense, the Court will not support the seizure of tractors appellee should be returned. YAO Hua-ping the appeal the appellant of its tractor toolbox in cash of $ 10,000 does not provide sufficient evidence, which requires the return of water to the town government is untenable, this court does not support. Trial verdict was not inappropriate, according to the law should be maintained. Accordance with the "PRC Administrative Procedure Law" Article 61 Section (a) of the regulations, ruling as follows: dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict. A second instance court costs of $ 100, respectively, by the appellee and appellant Yao Guan County People's Government of the burden of 100 yuan each level. This decision is final. Presiding Judge: Zhang recorded Umpires: Jordan Hsueh first Umpires: tensioned Ridge June 3, 2000 on behalf of the clerk: Duke Law翻译成中文山东省聊城市中级人民法院行政判决书（2000）聊行终字第57号 上诉人（原审原告）：姚化平，男1962年8月生，汉族，小学文化，农民，住冠县清水镇姚行村。 委托代理人：葛润民，聊城市东昌府区中心法律事务所法律工作者。 委托代理人：邢天华，职业同上。 被上诉人（原审被告）：冠县清水镇人民政府。 法定代表人：岳其祥，该镇镇长。 委托代理人：殷汝奎，冠县清水镇司法所所长。 上诉人姚化平因诉农业行政强制一案，不服冠县人民法院（1999）冠行初字第161号行政判决书，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭，对本案进行了审理，现已审理终结。 案经冠县人民法院审理认定：1998年阴历后五月初一，被告冠县清水镇人民政府以原告姚化平拒交农业夏征款为由，强行将原告姚化平的拖拉机扣押至本村杜学功家，其行政行为没有法律依据，本院不予支持。原告姚化平所诉其工具箱内有现金一万元，查无实据，本院不予采信。依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十四条第（二）项第3、4目之规定，冠县人民法院于1999年12月22日判决：一、撤销被告冠县清水镇人民政府扣押原告姚化平拖拉机行政强制行为；二、限被告冠县清水镇人民政府于本判决生效后五日内返还原告姚化平拖拉机；三、驳回原告姚化平的其他诉讼请求。案件受理费400元，由被告冠县清水镇人民政府负担。 上诉人姚化平不服一审判决，以冠县人民法院（1999）冠行初字第161号行政判决书认定事实不清，判决错误为由提起上诉，请求二审法院依法改判。 被上诉为冠县清水镇人民政府答辩称，原审法院认定事实清楚，程序合法，适用法律正确，判决得当，请二审法院依法判决维持。 本院对被上诉人冠县清水镇人民政府在一审中提交的证据进行了审查、质证。被上诉人清水镇人民政府提交的主要证据是：1、李凤梅的调查笔录；2、李春玲的证言；3、调查杜继凤的笔录；4、调查李春泽的笔录，以上证据均证明上诉人姚化平拖拉机工具箱内没有现金。5、调查李书玲、陈任祥的笔录；6、调查范玉岭的笔录，均证明上诉人姚化平的拖拉机被扣押在杜学功家中。 上诉人姚化平的委托代理人对被上诉人冠县清水镇人民政府提供的证据提出异议，并提交以下证据：1、杜学功的谈话笔录；2、许以峰的询问笔录；3、杜玉娥等人的证言。以上证据均证明被上诉人冠县清水镇人民政府的工作人员于1998年5月1日强行将上诉人姚化平的拖拉机扣押至杜学功家，不交钱不放拖拉机。 本院认为：被上诉人冠县清水镇人民政府于1998年阴历5月1日，以上诉人姚化平拒交农业夏征款为由，强行将上诉人姚化平的拖拉机扣押至杜学功家之事实可以认定。该行政行为没有法律依据，属违法行为，本院不予支持，被上诉人所扣押之拖拉机应予返还。上诉人姚化平所诉其拖拉机工具箱内有现金一万元，未能提供确实充分的证据，其要求清水镇政府返还的理由不能成立，本院不予支持。原审判决并无不当，应依法维持。依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第六十一条第（一）项之规定，判决如下： 驳回上诉，维持原判。 一、二审案件受理费各100元，分别由被上诉人冠县人民政府和上诉人姚化平各负担100元。 本判决为终审判决。 审 判 长：张玉录审 判 员：薛振先审 判 员：张法岭二000年六月三日代书记员： 周公法