On January 10, 2020, the Hunan Higher People’s Court issued a second-instance verdict on the case of Du Shaoping’s intentional homicide and the criminal group case of evil forces, and ruled in accordance with the law to dismiss the appeals of 8 defendants including Du Shaoping and Luo Guangzhong, and the whole case upheld the original case. The sentence was approved by the Supreme People’s Court for approval of Luo Guangzhong’s death sentence, and Du Shaoping’s death sentence was submitted to the Supreme People’s Court for approval.
From December 17 to 18, 2019, the Intermediate People's Court of Huaihua City, Hunan Province conducted a first-instance public trial of the defendant Du Shaoping's intentional homicide case and the case of a malicious criminal group and pronounced a verdict in court. Defendant Du Shaoping was guilty of intentional homicide, intentional injury, quarreling and provoking trouble, illegal detention, assembling a crowd, forced trading, combined punishment for several crimes, decided to execute the death penalty, deprived of political rights for life, and fined RMB 500,000 Yuan; The defendant Luo Guangzhong was sentenced to death for the crime of intentional homicide, with a two-year reprieve and deprived of political rights for life; the other 12 defendants were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from one to eight years.
After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, Du Shaoping's eight defendants dissatisfied and lodged an appeal. The Hunan Higher People's Court opened a public hearing on the case of the appellant Du Shaoping and Luo Guangzhong on the intentional homicide on January 6, 2020, and conducted written trials of the criminal facts of the other appellants and the defendant in the original trial in accordance with the law.
In the first instance, the court found that in December 2001, Du Shaoping undertook the civil construction of a 400-meter playground in Xinhuang Dong Autonomous County No. 1 Middle School and hired the defendant Luo Guangzhong and others to manage it. Xinhuang No. 1 Middle School appointed Deng Shiping and Yao Benying (deceased) from the General Affairs Office to supervise the quality of the project. During the construction process, Du Shaoping had conflicts with Deng Shiping due to engineering quality and other issues, and had a grudge against Deng Shiping. On January 22, 2003, Du Shaoping and Luo Guangzhong killed Deng Shiping in the office of the engineering headquarters. The two buried the body in a pit in the playground that night, and Luo Guangzhong directed a forklift to fill the pit the next day.
Since 2008, with Du Shaoping as the principal, 13 defendants Jiang Shaojun, Yao Cailin, Yang Hua, Yang Song, Song Zhilin, Wang Hong, Cheng Shan, Yang Tianhao, Wang Wen, Yang Cheng, Zhang Shijie, and Yang Deyong as members. Evil criminal groups used violence and threats to collect the principal and interest of loan sharks, intervened in civil disputes, and sought illegal benefits from them. They jointly deliberately carried out many criminal activities such as provoking troubles, illegal detentions, gathering fights, and forced transactions. In addition, in April 2005, Du Shaoping also intentionally injured one person with others.
In mid-April 2019, the Xinhuang County Public Security Bureau seized Du Shaoping’s criminal gangs and collected clues from the society extensively during the special struggle against criminals and evil. In May, when the Huaihua City Public Security Bureau checked clues to the murder of Deng Shiping assigned by the 16th Supervision Group of the Central Anti-triad and Evil Action Team, it found that Du Shaoping was extremely related to the case. After in-depth investigation, the public security organ dug up a human remains in the playground of Xinhuang No.1 Middle School in the early morning of June 20 based on the confessions and on-site identifications of Du Shaoping and Luo Guangzhong. The remains were confirmed by DNA identification as the remains of Deng Shiping.
The Hunan Higher People's Court held that the facts identified in the first-instance judgment were clear, the evidence was reliable and sufficient, the conviction was accurate, the sentence was appropriate, and the trial procedures of the whole case were legal, so the Hunan Provincial Higher People's Court held that the above-mentioned ruling was made in accordance with the law.