CCTV News: According to the WeChat public account of the Changsha Intermediate People's Court of Hunan Province, on April 10, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court of Hunan Province pronounced a second-instance judgment on the case of intentional injury in Song Yuming in accordance with the law, and ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
The Yuelu District People's Court of Changsha City determined in the first instance: At around 16:00 on September 6, 2023, during the after-school service, Song Yuming threw a half-part triangle ruler at a noisy student after repeatedly stopping and restraining students from being ineffective, and hit Liu Mouchen's forehead, causing Liu Mouchen to be seriously injured and disability in the ninth level. The first instance held that the defendant Song Yuming deliberately injured someone else's body, causing serious injuries, and his behavior constituted the crime of intentional injury. As a teacher, Song Yuming has caused harm to minor students and has a bad impact and should be severely punished according to law. Song Yuming has surrendered himself and other circumstances, and can be given a lighter punishment according to law. The school bears tort liability in accordance with the law and has fully compensated the victim. The first instance judgment: The defendant Song Yuming was sentenced to five years in prison for intentional injury, prohibiting him from engaging in close contact with minors; and rejecting the request for civil litigation of Liu Mouchen, the plaintiff in the ancillary civil litigation.
After the verdict was announced, Song Yuming and Liu Mouchen both appealed. The Changsha Intermediate People's Court interrogated the defendant in accordance with the law and listened to the opinions of other parties, defense lawyers and litigation agents. After trial, it was believed that the first-instance judgment determined the facts clearly, the evidence was true and sufficient, the conviction was accurate, the sentencing was appropriate, and the trial procedure was legal, and the above ruling was made in accordance with the law.
