I. Capability Overview
This composite capability is intended for first-instance criminal cases. It receives a factual description of the case (including the prosecuting authority's charges, a summary of evidence, the defendant's confession, etc.) and outputs a criminal judgment document with complete structure, rigorous reasoning, and standardized format. The execution process strictly follows the main line of "fact extraction → concept understanding → dispute identification → legal provision retrieval → case retrieval → deductive reasoning → format application → terminology standardization," and sets quality checks and conditional branches at key nodes.
II. List of Selected Atomic Capabilities
| Step Number | Capability Number | Capability Name | Reason for Selection |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 4 | Extraction of Core Legal Elements | The foundation of a judicial document is accurate fact finding. All core elements such as subject, act, object, time, causation, and legal consequences must be extracted from the case description to provide structured input for all subsequent steps. |
| S2 | 5 | Understanding of Legal Concepts | It is necessary to accurately understand the connotation and extension of concepts such as the statutory constitutive elements of the crime involved, the form of the offense (completed/attempted/discontinued), joint crime, and sentencing circumstances, so as to ensure that the application of law is not deviated. |
| S3 | 6 | Identification of Issues in Dispute and Legal Relationships | The "This Court finds" section of the judgment document must respond to the issues in dispute between the prosecution and the defense, and it is necessary to accurately identify the core points of dispute in the case and the nature of the legal relationships. |
| S4 | 8 | Legal Provision Retrieval | A judgment document must cite specific legal provisions as the basis for adjudication, and it is necessary to retrieve the applicable criminal law provisions, judicial interpretations, and sentencing norms. |
| S5 | 9 | Case Retrieval | Sentencing needs to refer to the patterns of judicial practice in similar cases to ensure that the judgment result falls within a reasonable range and to enhance the uniformity and persuasiveness of adjudication. |
| S6 | 16 | Deductive Reasoning | The core argumentative logic of a judgment document is "major premise (legal norms) → minor premise (case facts) → conclusion (adjudication result)." Deductive reasoning is the key capability for generating the adjudication reasons and sentencing conclusion. |
| S7 | 49 | Application of Legal Document Format | Criminal judgment documents have strict format specifications (header, facts, reasons, judgment text, tail). It is necessary to identify the document type and apply the corresponding format. |
| S8 | 50 | Standardized Expression of Legal Terminology | A judgment document is a formal legal document. All wording must be accurate, unambiguous, and compliant with the requirements of legal style, running through the entire output process. |
III. Atomic Capabilities Not Selected
This composite capability uses all 8 available atomic capabilities, with no exclusions.
Reason statement: Judicial document generation is one of the most complex terminal tasks in legal AI, requiring full-chain coverage from fact finding to legal application and then to document output. The 8 atomic capabilities respectively correspond to indispensable links in this chain—the fact layer (AS4), concept layer (AS5), dispute layer (AS6), norm layer (AS8, AS9), reasoning layer (AS16), and output layer (AS49, AS50). The absence of any one of them would result in defects in the judgment document in a certain dimension.
IV. Complete Execution Process
Process Overview
输入：案件事实描述
│
▼
[S1] AS4 法律核心要素提取
│
▼
[S2] AS5 法律概念理解
│
├──质量检查点QC1──→ 不通过则回溯S1
▼
[S3] AS6 争议焦点和法律关系识别
│
▼
[S4] AS8 法条检索
│
├──质量检查点QC2──→ 不通过则回溯S2/S3
▼
[S5] AS9 案例检索
│
▼
[S6] AS16 演绎推理
│
├──质量检查点QC3──→ 不通过则回溯S4/S5
▼
[S7] AS49 法律文书格式适用
│
▼
[S8] AS50 法律术语规范表达
│
├──质量检查点QC4──→ 不通过则回溯S7
▼
输出：完整刑事判决书
S1: Extraction of Core Legal Elements
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Invoked Capability | AS4 — Extraction of Core Legal Elements |
| Input | Full text of the original case facts description (including the prosecution authority's allegations, evidence list, and the defendant's attitude) |
| Execution action | Extract the following indivisible core elements item by item from the text: ① Criminal subject (defendant's identity, accomplice information); ② Criminal act (specific mode of conduct, means); ③ Criminal object/target (legal interest infringed, specific property); ④ Criminal purpose/motive; ⑤ Criminal result (completed/attempted, amount of loss); ⑥ Timeline (time of offense, time of apprehension, time of restitution, etc.); ⑦ Causal relationship; ⑧ Sentencing-related circumstances (voluntary surrender, confession, return of illicit gains, prior convictions, etc.); ⑨ Evidence summary |
| Output | Structured element list (in JSON or table form) |
| Pass to the next step | Complete structured element list, for S2 to understand the relevant legal concepts |
Example case one:
Extraction result: Subject (Zhang 3), Act (forging identity card, fraudulently obtaining property under a false name), Purpose (repaying debt), Target amount (100,000 yuan), Result (was exposed and did not succeed), Time (April 28, 2017)
Example case two:
Extraction result: Subject (An Xu + Yang Mou joint crime), Act (using tools to pry open a door and burglarize a residence), Object (gold and silver jewelry), Time (offense on May 9, 2016, arrested on April 15, 2018), Leniency circumstance (returned 3,000 yuan)
S2: Legal concept understanding
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Capability invoked | AS5 — Legal concept understanding |
| Input | Structured element list output by S1 |
| Execution action | Based on the extracted behavioral characteristics and results, identify the possible charges involved, and understand one by one the constitutive requirements and the intension and extension of the following legal concepts: ① The statutory constitutive requirements of the charges involved (four elements or three-tier system); ② Concepts of criminal form (completed offense, attempted offense, discontinuation, preparation); ③ Concepts of joint crime (principal offender, accessory, coerced offender); ④ Concepts of sentencing circumstances (statutory mitigating/aggravating circumstances, discretionary circumstances); ⑤ Other special concepts involved in the case (such as "burglary of a residence," "huge amount," etc.) |
| Output | Analysis table of legal concepts involved in the case (each concept includes definition, constitutive requirements, and applicable conditions) |
| Pass to the next step | Concept analysis table + S1's element list, for S3 to identify the disputed issues |
Example case one:
Understand the constitutive requirements of fraud — purpose of illegal possession, fabricating facts or concealing the truth, defrauding others of property, relatively large amount; attempted crime — already commenced committing the crime but failed to accomplish it due to reasons beyond one's will
Example case two:
Understand "burglary of a residence" under the crime of theft — criminal liability applies regardless of the amount; joint crime; standards for distinguishing principal offender from accessory
🔍 Quality check point QC1: Element-concept matching verification
| Check item | Verification logic | Handling if not passed |
|---|---|---|
| Element completeness | Whether the elements extracted by S1 cover all corresponding facts of the constitutive requirements of the charges in S2 | Trace back to S1 and supplement the extraction of omitted elements |
| Concept coverage | Whether S2 covers the legal concepts corresponding to all behavioral characteristics in S1 | Supplement understanding of omitted concepts in S2 |
| Reasonableness of preliminary charge determination | Whether the initially identified charge matches the behavioral characteristics (e.g., violent taking of property should not be charged as theft) | Backtrack to S2 to re-analyze the direction of the charge |
S3: Identification of disputed issues and legal relationships
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Capabilities invoked | AS6 — Identification of disputed issues and legal relationships |
| Input | Structured element list from S1 + legal concept analysis table from S2 |
| Execution actions | ① Identify the nature of the legal relationships between the parties (criminal prosecution relationship, accomplice relationship, victim-defendant relationship, etc.); ② Identify the possible disputed issues between the prosecution and defense, including but not limited to: disputes over charge determination, disputes over the form of the offense (completed vs. attempted), disputes over accomplice status (principal vs. accessory), disputes over sentencing circumstances (voluntary surrender/confession determination), and disputes over amount determination; ③ For each disputed issue, mark the priority that needs to be addressed in the "This Court holds" section |
| Output | List of disputed issues (with priority ranking) + legal relationship map |
| Passed to the next step | List of disputed issues, guiding S4 to precisely retrieve relevant legal provisions |
Case 1 example:
Disputed issues: ① Whether it constitutes completed or attempted fraud; ② Determination of "huge amount" (which sentencing range under Article 266 applies to 100,000 yuan)
Case 2 example:
Disputed issues: ① An Xu's status in the joint crime (principal or accessory); ② The impact of returning 3,000 yuan on sentencing
S4: Legal provision retrieval
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Capabilities invoked | AS8 — Legal provision retrieval |
| Input | Charges and concept analysis from S2 + list of disputed issues from S3 |
| Execution actions | Retrieve applicable legal norms according to the following levels: ①Conviction provisions: the corresponding specific provisions of the Criminal Law for the charge involved (including sentencing ranges); ②Provisions on the form of the offense: such as general provisions on attempt (Article 23), discontinuation (Article 24), etc.; ③Provisions on accomplices: such as joint crime (Article 25), principal and accessory offenders (Articles 26-29); ④Provisions on sentencing circumstances: such as voluntary surrender (Article 67), confession (Article 67, paragraph 3), meritorious service (Article 68), etc.; ⑤Provisions on penalty execution: such as fines (Article 52, Article 53), restitution (Article 64), etc.; ⑥Judicial interpretations: amount standards for the charge involved, sentencing guidance opinions, etc. |
| Output | List of applicable legal provisions (including full text of the provisions, reasons for application, and corresponding disputed issue numbers) |
| Passed to the next step | List of legal provisions, used to limit the retrieval scope for S5 case retrieval and as the major premise for deductive reasoning in S6 |
Case 1 example:
Retrieval results: Article 266 of the Criminal Law (fraud and sentencing ranges), Article 23 (attempted crime), Article 67, paragraph 3 (leniency for truthful confession)
Case 2 example:
Retrieval results: Articles 264, 25, 67(3), 52, 53, and 64 of the Criminal Law
🔍 Quality check point QC2: Legal provision-disputed issue coverage verification
| Check item | Verification logic | Handling when not passed |
|---|---|---|
| Full coverage of disputed issues | Whether each disputed issue in S3 has corresponding legal provision support | Backtrack to S4 for supplementary retrieval |
| Accuracy of charge provisions | Whether the retrieved charge provisions are consistent with the charges determined in S2 | Backtrack to S2 to reconfirm the charges, or backtrack to S4 to revise the retrieval |
| Completeness of sentencing circumstance provisions | Whether each sentencing circumstance extracted in S1 has a corresponding legal provision | Backtrack to S4 for supplementary retrieval of legal provisions related to sentencing circumstances |
| Timeliness of judicial interpretations | Whether the retrieved judicial interpretations were valid at the time of the offense | Replace with the version of the judicial interpretation valid at the time of the offense |
S5: Case retrieval
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Capability invoked | AS9 — Case retrieval |
| Input | Structured elements from S1 (charge, mode of conduct, amount, circumstances) + disputed issues from S3 + list of legal provisions from S4 |
| Execution actions | ① Using the charge + mode of conduct + form of crime as keywords, retrieve judgments of similar cases; ② Focus on: sentencing ranges under similar amounts/circumstances, adjudicative tendencies on disputed issues (such as the practical understanding of standards for determining accessories), and sentencing habits of courts in the same region; ③ Extract sentencing benchmarks and adjustment factors from similar cases |
| Output | Similar case retrieval report (including the charges, circumstances, sentencing results, and adjudication gist of 3-5 reference cases) |
| Passed to the next step | Sentencing ranges and adjudicative tendencies of similar cases, used to calibrate the sentencing conclusion during deductive reasoning in S6 |
Conditional branches:
- If highly similar cases are retrieved (mode of conduct, amount, and circumstances are basically consistent): directly extract sentencing reference values
- If no highly similar cases are retrieved: expand the retrieval scope (relax the amount range or mode of conduct), and note that the reference value is limited
Example case 1:
Find sentencing patterns in similar attempted fraud cases to assist in judging the reasonableness of the seven-month sentencing range
Example case 2:
Summarize the sentencing patterns in Shanghai judicial practice from similar residential burglary cases; find relevant precedents on standards for determining accessories
S6: Deductive reasoning
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Capability invoked | AS16 — Deductive reasoning |
| Input | Structured elements from S1 (minor premise) + list of legal provisions from S4 (major premise) + disputed issues from S3 (argumentation objective) + similar case references from S5 (sentencing calibration) |
| Execution actions | Reason layer by layer according to the following logical chain, with each layer using the syllogistic structure of "major premise → minor premise → conclusion":First layer: Conviction reasoning — Compare the case facts item by item against the constitutive elements of the charge, argue whether all elements are satisfied → reach a conclusion on whether the charge is established/not established;Second layer: Reasoning on the form of crime(condition-triggered) — If there is a dispute over the form such as attempt/suspension, compare the facts against the elements of the form → reach a conclusion on the form;Third layer: Accomplice reasoning(Condition-triggered) — If there is joint crime, argue the status and role of each defendant → reach a conclusion on principal and accessory;Fourth layer: Sentencing circumstances reasoning — argue item by item whether statutory/discretionary mitigating, reduced, or aggravating circumstances are established;Fifth layer: Sentencing conclusion reasoning — combine the conviction conclusion + form + accomplice status + sentencing circumstances + similar case references → derive the specific prison term and supplementary penalties;Sixth layer: Incidental matters reasoning — derivation of incidental judgment items such as restitution, confiscation, and prohibition orders |
| Output | Complete reasoning chain (including the major premise, minor premise, and conclusion of each layer) + final adjudication conclusion (principal penalty + supplementary penalty + incidental judgment items) |
| Pass to the next step | Reasoning chain text (for use in the "This Court finds" section) + adjudication conclusion (for use in the judgment operative part) |
Case 1 example:
①Each element of the crime of fraud is satisfied item by item → the crime of fraud is established; ②Being exposed before obtaining the property is due to reasons beyond the will → attempted crime is established; ③100,000 yuan falls within the "huge amount" sentencing bracket, and for attempt a lighter or reduced punishment may be applied by reference to completion; ④Combined with leniency for truthful confession → derive a fixed-term imprisonment of seven months + a fine of 30,000 yuan
Case 2 example:
①The elements of burglary are satisfied → the crime of theft is established; ②Two persons conspired and jointly committed it → joint crime is established; ③Defense counsel argued accessory status, but there is insufficient evidence to support it → not adopted; ④Leniency for truthful confession + return of embezzled funds → derive a fixed-term imprisonment of six months + a fine of 2,000 yuan + an order for restitution
🔍 Quality checkpoint QC3: Verification of reasoning chain completeness and consistency
| Check item | Verification logic | Handling if not passed |
|---|---|---|
| Full coverage of elements | Whether the conviction reasoning argues each element of the crime item by item | Go back to the first layer of S6 and supplement argumentation for omitted elements |
| All disputed issues addressed | Whether each disputed issue in S3 is explicitly addressed in the reasoning chain | Go back to S6 and supplement argumentation for omitted disputed issues |
| Reasonableness of sentencing | Whether the derived sentence falls within the sentencing range prescribed by the legal provisions in S4 and is basically consistent with the sentencing range of similar cases in S5 | If it exceeds the statutory range → go back to S4 to confirm whether the legal provisions are applied correctly; if it deviates too much from similar cases → go back to S5 to expand the search or supplement reasoning on special circumstances in S6 |
| Logical consistency | Whether there are contradictions among the reasoning conclusions of each layer (e.g., finding attempt but sentencing as completion) | Go back to S6 to correct the contradictory link |
S7: Application of legal document format
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Capability invoked | AS49 — Application of legal document format |
| Input | Structured elements of S1 + reasoning chain and adjudication conclusion of S6 + list of legal provisions of S4 |
| Execution action | ①Identify the document type as "criminal first-instance judgment"; ②In accordance with the format specifications for criminal judgments prescribed by the Supreme People's Court, assemble the outputs of the preceding steps into the following structure:Header — court name, case number, public prosecution organ, basic information of the defendant, information of defense counsel, origin of the case, and trial process;Facts section — the "Upon trial, it is ascertained" paragraph (restating the facts based on the S1 elements) + enumeration of evidence;Reasoning section — the "This Court holds" paragraph (developing the argument based on the S6 reasoning chain, responding to each disputed issue in turn);Operative part of the judgment — the conviction and sentencing conclusion + accessory penalties + restitution and other ancillary judgment items (based on the S6 adjudication conclusion);Tail section — calculation of credit for time served, notification of the right to appeal, signature of the judicial personnel, date;Appendix — full text of the relevant legal provisions (based on the S4 list of legal provisions) |
| Output | Formatted draft judgment (including all structural sections) |
| Pass to the next step | Full text of the draft judgment, for S8 to carry out terminology standardization and polishing |
Case One example:
Format of a criminal judgment, setting out in sequence the party information, the charges by the public prosecution organ, the findings of fact, this Court holds, the operative part of the judgment, calculation of the term of imprisonment, notification of appeal, and the appended relevant legal provisions
S8: Standardized expression of legal terminology
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Capability invoked | AS50 — Standardized expression of legal terminology |
| Input | Full text of the draft judgment output by S7 |
| Execution actions | Conduct a sentence-by-sentence review and standardization of the full text of the judgment: ①Terminology accuracy: ensure that the expression of charges, forms of crime, and sentencing circumstances uses statutory terminology (e.g., "attempted crime" rather than "attempted offender", "truthfully confessing one's crimes" rather than "confessing frankly"); ②Standardization of the operative part of the judgment: ensure that expressions such as "sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of X years/months", "and concurrently sentenced to a fine of RMB X yuan", and "ordered to make restitution" conform to judicial document conventions; ③Standardization of citation of legal provisions: ensure that the citation format "in accordance with Article X, paragraph X of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China" is correct; ④Stylistic consistency: ensure that the full text uses third-person narration, sentence patterns specific to legal documents, and no colloquial expressions; ⑤Standardization of logical connectives: ensure that connectives such as "in view of", "in summary", and "accordingly" are used appropriately |
| Output | Final draft of the judgment after terminology standardization |
| Pass to final output | Complete criminal judgment |
Case One example:
Ensure that expressions such as "attempted crime", "given a lighter or mitigated punishment by reference to the punishment for a completed crime", "sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment", and "and concurrently sentenced to a fine" conform to criminal document standards
🔍 Quality check point QC4: Final draft completeness verification
| Check item | Verification logic | Handling if not passed |
|---|---|---|
| Structural completeness | Whether the judgment contains all sections: header, facts, reasons, operative part, and tail | Go back to S7 to supplement the missing sections |
| Consistency between the operative part and the reasons | Whether the charges, term of imprisonment, and fine in the operative part of the judgment are fully consistent with the reasoning conclusions in the "This Court holds" section | Go back to S7 to correct the inconsistencies |
| Completeness of citation of legal provisions | Whether all cited legal provisions are appended at the end of the judgment | Backtrack to S7 to supplement omitted legal provisions |
| Zero terminology defects | Whether the full text contains colloquial expressions, terminology errors, or nonstandard formatting | Backtrack to S8 for re-polishing |
| Accuracy of sentence calculation | Whether the start and end dates of the sentence are calculated correctly (including pre-trial detention credit) | Backtrack to S7 to correct date calculation |
V. Conditional Branches and Backtracking Mechanism
5.1 Branch for Forms of Crime
在S1提取结果中检查"犯罪结果"要素：
├── 结果为"未得手/未得逞/未遂" → S2中必须理解"犯罪未遂"概念
│ → S3中必须将"既遂vs未遂"列为争议焦点
│ → S4中必须检索《刑法》第23条
│ → S6中必须增加"犯罪形态推理"层
├── 结果为"中止" → 类似路径，替换为第24条
└── 结果为"既遂/得手" → 跳过犯罪形态相关步骤
Case One triggers this branch: Zhang 3 "was exposed before succeeding" → triggers the attempt path → S2 understands attempted crime → S4 retrieves Article 23 → S6 demonstrates that the attempt is established and applies a lighter/reduced punishment
Case Two does not trigger this branch: An Xu "stole gold and silver jewelry and then fled" → completed offense → skip the form-of-crime step
5.2 Branch for Joint Crime
在S1提取结果中检查"犯罪主体"要素：
├── 主体为多人 → S2中必须理解"共同犯罪""主犯/从犯"概念
│ → S3中必须将"各被告人地位"列为争议焦点
│ → S4中必须检索《刑法》第25-29条
│ → S6中必须增加"共犯推理"层
└── 主体为单人 → 跳过共同犯罪相关步骤
Case Two triggers this branch: An Xu "together with Yang someone" → triggers the accomplice path → S2 understands joint crime → S3 identifies the dispute over principal and accessory → S6 demonstrates that the accessory defense opinion is not adopted
Case One does not trigger this branch: Zhang 3 acted alone → skip the accomplice step
5.3 Branch for Responding to Defense Opinions
在S1提取结果中检查是否存在辩护人意见：
├── 存在辩护意见 → S3中必须将辩护意见涉及的问题列为争议焦点
│ → S6中必须对每条辩护意见逐一回应（采纳/不予采纳并说理）
│ → S7中"本院认为"部分必须包含对辩护意见的评述
└── 不存在辩护意见 → 跳过辩护意见回应，仅回应控方指控
5.4 Backtracking for Sentencing Anomalies
在QC3中检查量刑合理性：
├── 量刑超出法定幅度 → 回溯S4确认量刑档次是否正确
│ → 回溯S6重新计算量刑
├── 量刑与类案偏差>50% → 回溯S5扩大案例检索范围
│ → 回溯S6补充特殊情节说理
└── 量刑在合理区间 → 继续S7
5.5 Backtracking for Change of Charges
在S6定罪推理中发现构成要件不满足：
├── 某一要件明显不满足 → 回溯S2重新分析可能的罪名
│ → 回溯S3重新识别争议焦点
│ → 回溯S4重新检索法条
│ → 从S6重新开始推理
└── 全部要件满足 → 继续后续推理层
VI. Complete Examples
Example One: Attempted Fraud Case (Case One)
Input: The public prosecution authority alleges the case facts describing Zhang 3 forging an ID card, using a false name to defraud 100,000 yuan, and being exposed before succeeding.
Execution Process:
| Step | Capability | Key Operation | Output Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | AS4 | Extract subject (Zhang 3), act (forging an ID card, using a false name to defraud money), purpose (repaying debt), target amount (100,000 yuan), result (exposed before succeeding), time (April 28, 2017) | Structured Element List |
| S2 | AS5 | Understand the four constitutive elements of fraud; understand the definition and elements of attempted crime | Concept Analysis Table |
| QC1 | — | Verification: elements cover all constitutive elements of fraud ✓; "before succeeding" corresponds to the concept of attempted crime ✓ | Pass |
| S3 | AS6 | Identify disputed issues: ① completed offense vs. attempt; ② which sentencing range 100,000 yuan falls into | List of Disputed Issues |
| S4 | AS8 | Retrieve Article 266, Article 23, and Paragraph 3 of Article 67 of the Criminal Law | List of Legal Provisions |
| QC2 | — | Verification: both disputed issues are covered by legal provisions ✓; legal provisions for sentencing circumstances are complete ✓ | Pass |
| S5 | AS9 | Retrieve sentencing patterns for similar attempted fraud cases and confirm the reasonableness of the seven-month sentencing range | Similar Case Report |
| S6 | AS16 | Four-layer reasoning: ① each constitutive element is satisfied item by item → fraud is established; ② being exposed is due to reasons beyond the will → attempt; ③ 100,000 yuan falls into the "huge amount" range + lighter/reduced punishment for attempt; ④ truthful confession leads to lighter punishment → seven months + fine of 30,000 yuan | Reasoning Chain + Adjudication Conclusion |
| QC3 | — | Verification: sentencing is within the statutory range ✓; consistent with similar cases ✓; all disputed issues are addressed ✓ | Pass |
| S7 | AS49 | Assemble according to the criminal judgment format: header → fact finding → this Court finds → judgment text → sentence calculation → appeal notification → appended legal provisions | Draft Judgment |
| S8 | AS50 | Standardized expressions such as "attempted crime" "be given a lighter or mitigated punishment by reference to the completed crime" "sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment" "and also imposed a fine" | Final draft of the judgment |
| QC4 | — | Verification: complete structure ✓; main text consistent with reasoning ✓; standardized terminology ✓; sentence calculation correct (2017.4.28-2017.11.27) ✓ | Passed |
Output: Complete criminal judgment, sentencing Zhang 3 for fraud, fixed-term imprisonment of seven months, and a fine of RMB 30,000.
Triggered conditional branches: Crime-form branch (attempt path) ✓; joint crime branch not triggered (committed alone).
Example Two: Joint crime case of burglary into a residence for theft (Case Two)
Input: Description of the case facts in which the public prosecution organ accused An Xu of collaborating with Yang to pry open a door and burglarize a residence to steal gold and silver jewelry, and of returning 3,000 yuan.
Execution process:
| Step | Capability | Key operation | Output summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | AS4 | Extract subjects (An Xu + Yang), act (using tools to pry open a door and burglarize a residence for theft), object (gold and silver jewelry), timeline (offense on 2016.5.9 → arrested on 2018.4.15), mitigating circumstances (returned 3,000 yuan) | Structured element list |
| S2 | AS5 | Understand the special criminalization standard for "burglary into a residence for theft"; understand joint crime and the criteria for distinguishing principal and accessory offenders | Concept analysis table |
| QC1 | — | Verification: elements cover the constitutive requirements of burglary into a residence for theft ✓; joint crime concept understood ✓ | Passed |
| S3 | AS6 | Identify disputed issues: ① An Xu's status in the joint crime (principal vs. accessory); ② the sentencing impact of returning 3,000 yuan | List of disputed issues |
| S4 | AS8 | Search Article 264, Article 25, paragraph 3 of Article 67, Article 52, Article 53, and Article 64 of the Criminal Law | List of legal provisions |
| QC2 | — | Verification: the dispute over joint crime status is covered by Articles 25-27 ✓; the circumstance of returning funds is covered by Article 64 ✓ | Passed |
| S5 | AS9 | Search sentencing patterns for residential burglary cases in the Shanghai area; search precedents for the criteria for determining accessory offenders | Similar case report |
| S6 | AS16 | Four-layer reasoning: ① the elements of burglary into a residence for theft are satisfied → theft is established; ② joint conspiracy and joint commission → joint crime is established; ③ the defender's claim of accessory status lacks sufficient evidence → not adopted; ④ truthful confession + return of funds as mitigation → six months + fine of 2,000 yuan + restitution | Reasoning chain + adjudication conclusion |
| QC3 | — | Verification: sentencing reasonable ✓; defense opinion on accessory status responded to ✓; logically coherent ✓ | Passed |
| S7 | AS49 | Assemble according to the format of a criminal judgment; the judgment main text contains two items (conviction and sentencing + restitution order) | Draft judgment |
| S8 | AS50 | Standardize expressions such as "burglary into a residence for theft" "joint crime" "order restitution of illegal gains and then return them to the victim" | Final draft of the judgment |
| QC4 | — | Verification: complete structure ✓; the two items of the judgment main text are consistent with the reasoning ✓; the response to the defense opinion has been written in ✓ | Passed |
Output: Complete criminal judgment, sentencing An Xu for theft, fixed-term imprisonment of six months, and a fine of RMB 2,000; order restitution of illegal gains and then return them to the victim Gong某某. The defender's accessory opinion is not adopted.
Triggered conditional branches: Joint crime branch ✓; defense opinion response branch ✓; crime-form branch not triggered (completed offense).
VII. Exception Handling and Fallback Mechanisms
| Exception Scenario | Handling Method |
|---|---|
| The case fact description is too brief, and S1 cannot extract sufficient elements | Mark "unclear facts" in the output, list the missing elements, and request supplementary information before re-executing |
| S2 cannot determine a unique charge (concurrence of charges exists) | In S3, list the choice of charge as the primary disputed issue; in S6, separately conduct constitutive element analysis for each candidate charge, select one for application, and provide reasoning |
| S5 retrieves no similar cases | Mark "no direct similar case reference"; in S6, sentencing reasoning is based only on the sentencing range prescribed by statutory provisions, and strengthen reasoning and argumentation in the judgment document |
| A logical contradiction appears in the S6 reasoning chain | Trigger full-chain backtracking, re-examine from S1 whether element extraction is accurate, and investigate the source of the contradiction step by step |
| The case involves multiple charges and combined punishment for several crimes | Execute the complete S2-S6 process separately for each charge, add a "combined punishment for multiple crimes reasoning" layer at the end of S6, and assemble according to the multi-charge judgment document format in S7 |
VIII. Summary of Capability Invocation Dependencies
AS4 ──→ AS5 ──→ AS6 ──→ AS8 ──→ AS9 ──→ AS16 ──→ AS49 ──→ AS50
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─ 终稿输出
│ │ │ │ │ │ └─ 格式组装
│ │ │ │ │ └─ 核心推理（依赖AS4+AS8+AS6+AS9）
│ │ │ │ └─ 量刑校准
│ │ │ └─ 大前提供给
│ │ └─ 论证目标设定
│ └─ 概念框架建立
└─ 事实基础奠定
Key dependency notes:
- AS16 (deductive reasoning) is the core hub of the entire process; it simultaneously depends on the outputs of four upstream capabilities: AS4 (minor premise), AS8 (major premise), AS6 (argumentation goal), and AS9 (sentencing calibration)
- AS49 (format application) and AS50 (terminology standardization) are serial output-layer capabilities; AS49 is responsible for structure, and AS50 is responsible for wording; together they ensure the formal quality of the final document
- Although AS5 (concept understanding) is located early in the process, its output runs through all subsequent steps and is the foundational capability for ensuring the accuracy of legal application