An intermediate court in central China's Henan Province has rejected a previous court ruling that a 48-year-old housemaid found guilty of stealing her employer's cell phone be sentenced to 10 years in jail, plus a 20,000 yuan fine. The court cited a lack of definitive judgment concerning the value of the phone and how much the owner said he paid for it, CNTV reports.
The owner claimed the phone was worth of 60,000 yuan.
That would be a quite ordinary case anywhere except for the high price of the cell phone.
The housemaid claimed that her employer delayed paying her salary for no sound reason after she had worked hard for 40 days. The illiterate maid said she tried to "keep" the cell phone as a guarantee that her salary would be paid.
After much public support and with the aid of a handful of rights-sensitive lawyers, the woman appealed to the higher court.
It found that she is guilty of theft, as she confessed to the deed. But it said it could not support the harsh punishment since there was no evidence of how expensive the phone was or what it was worth after much use.
The previous trial stirred huge public sentiment and controversy with many citizens criticizing the court's ruling as hugely unsympathetic to the poor and powerless and too favorable to the rich and powerful.
Lv Liangni, a well-known legal expert argues that the theft itself is well-grounded, especially given that the defendant admitted to the crime.
Yet, Lv says, the first courting ruling is very questionable and suspicious because the true price of the stolen phone remains unknown, something that is crucial to a theft case.
And what's more, Lv contends that she should have received special consideration due to her claims of not being paid promptly and that she only sought to make sure she received what was due in a way that an illiterate village woman would have done.
Furthermore, Lv says, should the woman have asked for it, the employer could also be found guilty of violating the labor law.
Some also argue that the court should also consider the housemaid's confession to her crime and consider leniency.
The intermediate court ruled that there is still a lack of evidence concerning how soon the housemaid confessed and asked the lower court to revisit that part as well.
