[Key words] false advertisement promotion fraud profit fake people, knowledgeable buy fake

[Referee points]

Fraud behavior must have the following items: First, fraudulent party must have fraudulent behavior; second, fraudulent party must have fraudulent intentions; third is fraudulently being causing misconspread due to fraudulent behavior, and is based on wrong cognition; It is the meaning of fraudulent party to say violation of its true meaning. According to the Supreme Solona’s reply comments on the Suggestions of the 5th National People’s Congress, INFORMATION INFORMATIONS, there is no subjective fraud for other fake buying fake people. It is not advisable to promote the special policy of the food and drug disputes (Article 3 of the Act [2013] No. 3) to promote all consumer protection. At present, the negative impact of professional counterparters is increasingly highly high, and more and more professional fake people, and their motives are not to purify the market, but use punitive compensation to extort the merchants to the merchants. The above behavior seriously violated the principle of honesty and credit, ignoring judicial authority, wastes judicial resources. Should not support the governance model of evil and improving evil and drinking thirst.

In addition, the SME has involved many similar claim cases in different provinces and cities.

[Related French]

“The Supreme People’s Court on Implementing the Implementation of the People ‘s Republic of China> Article 68

Article 148 of the People’s Republic of China

Article 21 of the Control Law of the People’s Republic of China Consumers

Article 45 of the Control Law of the People’s Republic of China Consumers

Article 55 of the Control Law of the People’s Republic of China

Article 56 of the Consumer Rights Protection of the People’s Republic of China

[Case index]

One trial: (2018) Shaanxi 0721 Prince Early 356 civil judgment

Second review: (2018) Shaanxi 07 Mercy 661 civil judgment

[Basic case]

The appellant (the original plaintiff): Shen Mou, male, Han nationality, lives in Lianhu District, Xi’an, Shaanxi Province.

The appellee (formerly defendant): Beijing Chen Yadi Technology Co., Ltd.

The appellant (formerly defendant): Beijing Wanjiafeng Trading Co., Ltd.

On December 19, 2017, the plaintiff Shen Mou was started at the store of the Tmall platform “Holy Bao Luo Chen Yadi Store” in the defendant Chen Yadi. The single price of 398 yuan, total 5970 yuan, order number 114250415064619417. After the plaintiff photographed the product, the price was 5970 yuan by Alipay. On December 20, 2017, the defendant Chen Yidi passed Yuantong Express to the plaintiff, on December 22, 2017, the plaintiff received the purchase item in Dahe Campan, Nanzheng District, Hanzhong City, Shaanxi Province. The defendant Wan Jiafeng has issued six plaintiffs in the Beijing VAT regular invoice, with a total amount of 5970 yuan. The list of commodity transactions submitted by the plaintiff showed that the online page is described in the case: Holy Paul men’s handbags leather buckle bag clutch big capacity head layer cowhide business hand-catching bag tide, product ID: 544382842396, Price 1528 Yuan, quantity 15, color classification brown, etc. After receiving the goods, the material material and propaganda did not match the product materials, and the handbag was sent to the Wenzhou Quality and Technical Supervision and Testing Institute. Wenzhou Quality and Technical Supervision and Testing Institute issued the number of test report No. FEP17120811 on January 2, 2018 Send the surface material of the recording of the men’s handbags.

[Referee results]

The court held that the trading information submitted by the plaintiff submitted by the trading details, the transaction information verified in the logistics details of the payment and the defendant’s reputation, which is enough to identify the plaintiff Shen Moumou and the defendant Mochadi network shopping contract relation. Article 21 of the Control Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that operators provide consumers with information about the quality, performance, use, and effective period of goods or services, should be true, comprehensive, not for falsehood or Propaganda of misunderstanding. The provisions of the “Light Industry Standards of the People’s Republic of China” (QB / T1333-2010) 4.4 identification, 90% of the surface layer materials use the head layer leather (except the head-layer removal film leather), allowing the “leather”. The men’s handbits sold by the defendant Martiali Di have been detected by the test fabric as a cow section, which does not meet the standards that allow the “leather”, and the defendant Chen Yadi uses the words “head layer leather, leather” in the web page. The product name promotion is prone to misleading consumers to make mistakes, there is false propaganda ingredients. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendant to retreat the plaintiff’s claim, and he supported it according to law. According to the transaction snapshot submitted by the plaintiff, the product leather material involved in the baby details is a cow section of the film, which is consistent with the test report submitted by the plaintiff. It reflects the true situation of the goods involved, although the defendant is involved. There is a false propaganda behavior in the product web header, but the existing evidence is not enough to prove that the defendant Morning Di will deliberately conceal the plaintiff, take false or other ineffective means to deceive consumers, so that the legitimate rights and interests of consumers have been damaged, so no The behavior of the defendant Morningati should construct a fraud. Article 55 of the People’s Republic of China Consumers’ Rights and Interests Protection Law is aimed at the provisions of the operator’s goods or services, so the plaintiff request shall claim the defendant to compensate the triple value of the triple value, and there is a reference law Improper, so the plaintiff does not support it according to law. The material used by the plaintiff will cause a handbag to be damaged due to the inspection needs. The cause is caused by improper publicity of Martyndi, which should be borne by the defendant Martydy. The defendant Wan Jiafeng Company has the case of the case of the goods invoice, and the defendant’s refund obligation to the defendant undertakes the joint compensation responsibility. After paying, it has the right to compensate to the defendant Chen Yadi. According to Article 21, Article 11, paragraph 1, Article 45, in accordance with the Control Law of the People’s Republic of China, Judgment: First, the defendant Beijing Chen Yadi Society Co., Ltd. should take effect after this judgment In the 10th, the plaintiff is still a shopping model of 5970 yuan. The defendant Beijing Wanjiafeng Trading Co., Ltd. assumes a joint payment responsibility for this payment; the plaintiff Shenmou should return the defendant Martyndi to return to the victim of the defendant Martier Di. 15 men’s handbags (including a damaged handbag, ensuring the remaining 14 handles); Second, reject other lawsuit requests for plaintiff Shenmou.

The appellant Shen Mou’s appeal request: revoke the second instance judgment, and the two subjects shall be sentenced to 17910 yuan in accordance with the law. The facts and reasons: 1. The court is not found in some facts, there is no involvement Whether the product is qualified. The appellant purchased the “product certificate” display: the fabric is a cow-section removable film leather / cow leather (two layers of cowhide main, with a head layer of cowhide); at the same time, the appellee is in Taobao Want Want to admit that the product is “” The second-layer skin knot layer of the cowhide is the “2nd floor cowhide mainly, the header leather). However, after the appeal was sent, the test results showed that it was a cow section of the film. (Layer 2 leather). 2, there is a conflict before and after the judgment of the court, it is believed that the appellee is falsely propaganda “head layer cowhide, leather” fraud consumers, but thinking that in the baby details column, it is description of the product leather materials for the cow section to prove the defendant deliberately. Concealed the real situation, take false or other non-resort to deceive consumers. When the appellant bought, did not pay attention to the product baby description leather material as a cow section. Cow-section removable membrane leather is a professional term. Ordinary consumers cannot master their meaning, the title typography “head layer leather, leather”, and material description is placed in inconspicuous position using professional terminology “cattle section removal film “The purpose is to buy for interest fraud consumers. 3. The law of the original instance applies to improper law, and the act of appellee is obvious to form fraud on the appellant. According to Articles 5, Article 5, Article 13, Article 6, Article 16, and Article 16 of the Imprisonment of Consumer Rights, belongs to the behavior of fraud. Therefore, the second instance court requests the case according to law.

[Referee reason]

The second instance court trial and believed that the second appellant as the operator constituting fraud. First of all, the appellant Shen once purchased 15 pieces of clutch, which exceeded the number of ordinary consumers purchased, and after receiving the products they purchased, they believed that the product was not a seller to it. When the leather material illustrates, it is a third party identification of the goods, and it is subjectively used to use punitive compensation for the third party identification. Secondly, the baby details of the product have clarified that the leather material involved in the case is a cow section of the film, and the certificate of the clutch bag is discovered after Shen Mou, it is not subject to the appellee. Before the handle bag, I presented to Shen Mou, so there is no case in which the appellant will make mistakes to make mistakes due to fraud. Therefore, it is not sufficient to identify the evidence of two appellee constitute fraud. The trial of the first-instance judgment is clear that the applicable law is correct and should be maintained according to law. The second trial is based on the provisions of Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment: dismisss the appeal and maintains the original judgment.

Source: Hanzhong City Intermediate People’s Court Network

Article 45 of the Control Law of the People’s Republic of China Consumers