This article mainly studied the criminal judgment (from2005to2011) on the website ofChongqing People’s Court as a sample, and carried out a careful study of several major factorsthat affect the sentencing of bribery with the empirical analysis, and extended other non-legalfactors that the sample did not reflect in the sentencing of bribery. In addition to empiricalresearch, this article pays more attention to theory to explain and deepen the content andresult of his research, convincing the empirical research. The writer hoped that this articlecould deepen our understanding of the factors that affect the sentencing of bribery throughstudying and exploring this topic and benefit to grasp and standardize the application of thesesentencing factors for the judicial.In addition to the introduction and the conclusion, thisarticle is divided into five parts:The first part, the writer first made a brief introduction to the selected sample, andsummarized and analysed the sample from three aspects, that is, the amount of bribery,circumstances for sentencing, the punishment of the crime. Then the writer discussed thebackground of the article, that is, Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuracycontinue to intensify efforts to crack down on the position crime. In order to standardizesentencing and the program of sentencing, the Supreme People’s Court issued " the guidanceof sentencing " and " the guidance of the program of sentencing ", which provided a usefulguide for us to study the sentencing of bribery.The second part, the writer first discussed that the impact of bribery amount determinessentencing grade of bribery and has an important role in the choice of the specific penalties.Then the writer discussed the identified problems of the amount of the traditional briberybehavior and borrower behavior and common bribery. The writer thought common briberyshould be in accordance with the " the total amount of bribery," to determine the sentencinggrade of joint crime of the bribe receiver,and on this basis, the share amount of bribery as adiscretionary circumstances should be taken into the sentencing of bribery as a discretionary circumstance. Although bribery amount plays an important role in the sentencing of bribery, itis wrong to pursue "the amount is the center”, because the amount of bribery is not the solecriterion of social harmfulness for bribery and "the amount is the center” does not match theobject which bribery violates and the specific amount of bribery is too stiff and inflexible.The third part, the writer analyzed the identification of action of surrender of briberyand the role which the action of surrender plays in the sentencing of bribery, and pointed outthe problem about the action of surrender in the sentencing of bribery, that is, the amplitude ofaccommodation which the action of surrender influences to the sentencing of bribery is toolarge and uneven. Then the writer made comparison between “’leniency for those whosurrender “with “’leniency for those who confess”,and draw a conclusion that the magnitudeof “’leniency for those who surrender “should not be greater than “’leniency for those whoconfess” in any case. About make contributions, the writer also first discussed itsidentification in the sentencing of bribery, and then analyzed the role that make contributionsplays in the sentencing of bribery, that is, make contributions affects the sentencing grade ofthe bribe receiver and the magnitude of lighter punishment.The fourth part, giving up ill-gotten gains, as a circumstance for sentencing, has attractmore and more attention from the judiciary, so the writer explained the impact of giving upill-gotten gains on the sentencing of bribery and analysed its conditions of lenient punishmentin the text. The writer pointed out that the court must strictly control the standards of lenientpunishment of giving up ill-gotten gains. Only the bribe receiver gives up ill-gotten gainswithin the validity period, and voluntarily returns or refunds most of or all the proceeds ofcrime, the court can allow him a lighter punishment.The fifth part, the writer discussed the impact of non-legal factors on the sentencing ofbribery by the extension of the sample, such as the judge’s experience, age, personality, andthe people’s outrage caused by public opinion. Although these factors are not reflected in thesample, they play a subtle role in the sentencing of bribery. We should limit the application orexclude the interference of these non-legal factors, in order to ensure judicial independenceand impartiality of the sentencing. |