A certain DONG and a certain SONG,
A Robbery Case
Guiding Case No. 14
(Discussed and Passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court
Released on January 31, 2013)
CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT
English Guiding Case (EGC14)
April 10, 2013 Edition*
*
The citation of this translation of the Guiding Case is: 《董某某、宋某某抢劫案》(A certain DONG and
a certain SONG, A Robbery Case), CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT, English Guiding Case (EGC14), Apr. 10, 2013
Edition, available at http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-14.
This document was primarily prepared by HU Ying, Christine Liu, Victor Lui, Ian McKinley, Randy Wu,
and ZHU Mo. The document was finalized by Dimitri Phillips and Dr. Mei Gechlik. Minor editing, such as
splitting long paragraphs, adding a few words included in square brackets, and boldfacing the headings to
correspond with those boldfaced in the original Chinese version, was done to make the piece more comprehensible
to readers. The following text, otherwise, is a direct translation of the original text and reflects formatting of the
Chinese document released by the Supreme People’s Court.
The following Guiding Case was discussed and passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme
People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and was released on January 31, 2013, available at
http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2013/02/id/893722.shtml. See also《最高人民法院关于发布第四批指导
性案例的通知》
（The Supreme People’s Court’s Notice Concerning the Release of the Fourth Batch of Guiding
Cases), Jan. 31, 2013, available at http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2013/02/id/893718.shtml.
Copyright 2013 by Stanford University
2
2013.04.10 Edition
Keywords
Criminal
Robbery
Crimes Committed by Minors
Prohibition Order
Main Points of the Adjudication
For a minor defendant who has been sentenced to public surveillance or for whom a
suspension of sentence has been pronounced, [the court] may, in accordance with the specific
circumstances of his 1 crime and the degree to which the prohibited items are related to the
criminal act committed, impose a “prohibition order” on him. For a minor induced into crime by
Internet use, [the court] may prohibit him from entering specified places such as Internet bars for
a certain period of time.
Related Legal Rule(s)
Article 72, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China
Basic Facts of the Case
Defendants, a certain DONG (董某某) and a certain SONG (宋某某) (aged 17 at the
time), indulged in online games. They often went to Internet bars together to go online and
stayed out all night. Around 11 o’clock3 on July 27, 2010, because their purchased time for
going online at the Internet bar had been used up, the two defendants, in collusion with a certain
WANG (under the age of criminal responsibility at the time of the crime), went to the Fitness
Equipment Community Center of Hongqi Street, Pingdingshan Municipality, Henan Province,
and held a knife to rob victims, a certain ZHANG and a certain WANG.4 They robbed ZHANG
of RMB 5 in cash and a cell phone. They then sold the stolen cell phone and spent the illicit
money on going online.
2
1
Translators’ note: “he” and “his” as used herein are gender-neutral terms that also refer to “she” and “her”.
Translators’ note: presumably, this should be with reference to the time of the incident, though the Chinese
text is not clear.
3
Translators’ note: the Chinese text does not specify whether this is 11:00 a.m. or p.m.
4
Translators’ note: the victim WANG should be distinct from the just-mentioned WANG that colluded with
the defendants.
2
Copyright 2013 by Stanford University
3
2013.04.10 Edition
Results of the Adjudication
On May 10, 2011, the Xinhua District People’s Court of Pingdingshan Municipality,
Henan Province, rendered the (2011) Xin Xing Wei Chu Zi No. 29 Criminal Judgment,
determining that defendants DONG and SONG were guilty of robbery. They were each
sentenced to a limited-term imprisonment of two years and six months, with suspension of
sentence for three years, and fined RMB 1,000. At the same time, the court prohibited DONG
and SONG from entering Internet bars, game rooms, and other such places for 36 months. After
the judgment was pronounced, the two defendants did not appeal. The judgment has already
come into legal effect.
Reasons for the Adjudication
In the effective judgment, the court opined: defendants DONG and SONG, for the
purpose of illegal possession, robbed others of their property by means of violence and threats.
Their conduct constituted robbery. Given that DONG and SONG carried out robbery at
knifepoint, that they were below eighteen years of age at the time of committing the crime and
were first-time offenders, that they pled guilty and repented with a relatively good attitude, and
that SONG was still an enrolled student, the conditions for suspension of sentence were [thus]
met. [The court] decided to sentence each of the two defendants to a limited-term imprisonment
of two years and six months, with suspension of sentence for three years.
Considering that: the defendants were induced into committing robbery mainly by the
need for money to pay for Internet bars; the two defendants had long indulged in online games
and there was a close relationship between Internet bars and other such places and their crime;
keeping the defendants away from places that brought about their crime was conducive to their
effective discipline by [their] parents and community during the suspension of sentence period
and to preventing recidivism; the defendants were under eighteen years of age at the time of the
crime and ordinarily had relatively poor self-control, setting the term of their prohibition order at
three years—the same as the probation period for suspension of sentence—was conducive to
their rehabilitation. [The court], therefore, in accordance with law, held that the two defendants
should be prohibited from entering Internet bars and other specified places during the probation
period for suspension of sentence.
Copyright 2013 by Stanford University