The court upheld the death sentence of Yu Huaying in the final appeal

On December 19th, the retrial and second instance of Yu Huaying's child trafficking case were held at the Guizhou Provincial High People's Court. The court ruled in court to reject Yu Huaying's appeal and uphold the first instance death sentence. The death sentence was submitted to the Supreme People's Court for approval. On January 6th, the Jimu News reporter learned from Yang Niuhua that she had received the Guizhou final verdict of the Yu Huaying case

On December 19th, Yang Niuhua participated in the final trial of the Yu Huaying case. According to the ruling obtained by Jimu News reporters, the Guizhou Provincial High People's Court pointed out that the appeal reasons and defense opinions of Yu Huaying and her defense counsel, which claimed that the sentence was too heavy and requested a lighter punishment, were not valid and were not accepted. The court used four "extreme" words to describe Yu Huaying: "The subjective malice is extremely deep, the criminal consequences are extremely serious, the social impact is extremely bad, and she is a criminal with extremely serious crimes. The death penalty should be applied." The judgment reads: Regarding the defense counsel of the appellant Yu Huaying, "Looking at the evidence in the whole case, the facts of the crime are basically clear, and the evidence is basic. The defense opinion is that the criminal facts required for a death penalty case are clear and the evidence is indeed sufficient

After investigation, it was found that there were indeed some criminal facts in this case that lacked objective physical evidence, reporting materials, on-site identification, and other evidence. There were also some facts such as the death of the briber. However, considering that the time of this case is relatively long, from 30 years after the first crime to more than 20 years after the last one, the crime scene has completely changed or changed significantly and cannot be identified. Some of the reporting materials and other documentary evidence are missing, some of the introducers are old or sick and unable to express themselves, and some of the victims are unwilling to cooperate with the investigation. These objective facts can provide reasonable explanations that comply with objective laws. And the evidence in the case includes statements from the biological parents of the abducted children, testimonies from the adoptive parents of the abducted children, testimony from the introducer Wang Moufu, testimony from the accomplice Wang Jiawen, DNA testing opinions from the 16 abducted children and their biological parents, identification of Yu Huaying by the abducted children Yang Niuhua, and identification of Yu Huaying by the bribe giver and relatives of the abducted children. Yu Huaying confessed to the abduction and trafficking of 17 children, and her confession is corroborated by other evidence. The evidence in the case has formed a complete chain of evidence, meeting the standards of clear facts and sufficient evidence. Therefore, the defense opinion cannot be established, and this court will not adopt it

Regarding the appellant Yu Huaying's argument that "Gong Xianliang proposed to abduct children to Handan, Hebei, and all the stolen funds were managed and controlled by Gong Xianliang: he did not participate in Wang Jiawen's abduction of children; he did not physically assault or abuse the abducted children" and her defense's argument that "the abduction, transportation, and sale directly carried out by the appellant Yu Huaying in the joint crime are inseparable from the criminal acts of other accomplices. In addition to Gong Xianliang and Wang Jiawen, the roles of other introducers, buyers, and caregivers cannot be ignored; Gong Xianliang participated in the abduction of 15 children, and his main criminal responsibility cannot be pursued, but cannot disappear with death. Wang paid for it. Participated in the introduction and bribery of 16 children, and cannot be ignored due to their advanced age" defense opinion

After investigation, it was found that after Yu Huaying made a profit, the two of them and Gong Xianliang immediately agreed to commit the crime, regardless of who first proposed child trafficking. In terms of specific behavior, the two of them jointly chose the location of the crime, first renting a house to familiarize themselves with the environment, and then selecting the target of the crime. Gong Xianliang or Yu Huaying lured the children by buying candy, popsicles and other items. Afterwards, the two took the abducted children to Handan City, Hebei Province for sale. According to the victim's statement, the testimony of the introducer and the buyer, it was Yu Huaying who negotiated the price and completed the transaction with the buyer. Throughout the entire criminal process, Yu Huaying acted actively and played a major role as the main culprit, and both of them should bear responsibility for all crimes. Although Yu Huaying did not participate in Wang Jiawen's trafficking of 17 children, she sold 16 children to Handan City, Hebei Province at prices ranging from 3000 yuan to 12500 yuan through Wang Moufu, Yang Moulan, and others. Their behavior has constituted the crime of child trafficking

The court held that the appellant Yu Huaying conspired with Gong Xianliang to abduct and sell children for profit. They approached the abducted children through careful preparation, such as renting a house, familiarizing themselves with the environment, purchasing candy, popsicles, etc., and gained their trust before committing the crime. They targeted unspecified victims and posed great personal and social risks. Yu Huaying abducted and sold 17 children as commodities, seriously violating the dignity and personal freedom of the abducted children. At the same time, it causes serious harm to the families of abducted children, leading to the separation of family ties that are difficult to make up for. Parents of abducted children spend a lot of time and money searching for them, traveling across the country. Some parents suffer from illness or even depression as a result. Yu Huaying also abducted two children from the same family in five separate crimes. In 2004, she was sentenced to eight years in prison for trafficking two other children. Her subjective malice was extremely deep, the consequences of the crime were extremely serious, and the social impact was extremely negative. She is an extremely serious criminal and should be sentenced to death. Therefore, the appellant Yu Huaying and her defense counsel's appeal reason and defense opinion of "excessive sentencing and request for lighter punishment" cannot be established, and this court does not adopt them. The original verdict was based on clear facts, sufficient evidence, accurate conviction, appropriate sentencing, reasonable civil compensation, and legal trial procedures. Reject the appeal and uphold the original verdict. This ruling is final. According to Article 246 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the death sentence of appellant Yu Huaying shall be submitted to the Supreme People's Court for approval

"After three years, this matter can finally be settled. In the future, we sisters should not only live a good life, but also live happily. My sister has worked hard for several years", sister Yang Sangying said after learning this news. Jimu News learned from Yang Niuhua and her representative lawyer that Yu Huaying has applied for legal aid. Yang Niuhua stated that she will continue to follow up on the progress of the case with her representative lawyer and submit relevant opinions