Southeast Asia Information Port News (www.dnyxxg.com) On February 3, the Yunnan Provincial Higher People's Court issued a retrial verdict in the case of Tian Yongming's intentional homicide, sentencing the defendant Tian Yongming to death for intentional homicide and depriving him of his political rights for life. The verdict has been submitted to the Supreme People's Court for review.
The retrial revealed that the original defendant, Tian Yongming, had previously been convicted of robbing Zhao Moumou after his rape was exposed and was released on July 15, 2002. After his release, Tian Yongming still harbored resentment and sought an opportunity to target Zhao Moumou. On November 13 of the same year, at approximately 8:00 PM, Tian Yongming broke into Zhao Moumou's home with a knife. Zhao Moumou noticed and fled, but Tian Yongming chased after her with the knife. Villager Liu Mingfu (the victim, deceased at age 37) intervened and was stabbed to death by Tian Yongming. Tian Yongming then caught up with Zhao Moumou and stabbed her several times, causing minor injuries. After committing the crime, Tian Yongming remained at large for a long period until his arrest on February 24, 2022.
In November 2022, the Yuxi Intermediate People's Court sentenced Tian Yongming to death with a two-year reprieve for intentional homicide, and deprived him of his political rights for life. After Tian Yongming appealed, in accordance with the principle of "no increase in sentence on appeal" in the Criminal Procedure Law, the Yunnan Higher People's Court issued a final ruling on October 26, 2025, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original verdict. Because the original judgment contained errors in the application of law and the sentencing was clearly inappropriate, the Yunnan Higher People's Court decided to initiate a retrial on October 28, 2025.
The Yunnan Higher People's Court, in its retrial, held that Tian Yongming disregarded national laws and social ethics, showed no remorse after serving his sentence, and committed a knife attack resulting in one death and one minor injury. His subjective malice was extremely deep, the circumstances of the crime were particularly heinous, and his personal dangerousness and social harm were extremely high. Furthermore, as a repeat offender, he should be severely punished according to law. The original judgment was based on clear facts and accurate conviction, but it applied the law incorrectly and the sentence was obviously inappropriate. Therefore, it should be corrected, and the aforementioned retrial judgment was made.
