鲁瑞庚诉东港市公安局悬赏广告纠纷案

　　原告：鲁瑞庚，男，27岁，工人，住辽宁省东港市前阳镇。
　　被告：辽宁省东港市公安局，住所地：辽宁省东港市大东镇。
　　法定代表人：刘华，该局局长。
　　原告鲁瑞庚因与被告辽宁省东港市公安局发生悬赏广告纠纷，向辽宁省丹东市中级人民法院提起诉讼。
　　原告诉称：1999年12月13日，被告东港市公安局通过东港市电视台向全市发布了一则悬赏提供“12·12”特大持枪杀人案线索的通告。12月19 日，我向在东港市公安局工作的亲属提供了案件的线索。被告对该线索查实后，一举破获了“12·12”特大持枪杀人案。但案件破获后，被告一直未按照悬赏通告履行自己的义务，给付我被害人家属奖励的50万元人民币。请求判令被告给付悬赏奖金50万元人民币，赔偿精神损失费5万元人民币，承担本案的诉讼费用。
　　被告辩称：我局侦破“12·12”特大持枪杀人案的线索及证据，并不完全是原告提供的。原告对于被害人家属50万元人民币的奖励和公安局的破案奖励，两者只能得其一。由于我局已按通告的第二条奖励原告10万元人民币，原告就不应再要求获得被害人家属50万元人民币的奖励，要求精神损失赔偿也没有事实及法律依据。
　　丹东市中级人民法院经审理查明：
　　1999年12月12日，东港市大东管理区永安街发生了一起特大持枪杀人案。为尽快破案，东港市公安局在被害人家属同意后，于1999年12月13日通过东港市电视台发布了悬赏通告，其主要内容是：一、凡是提供线索直接破案的，被害人家属奖励人民币50万元人民币；二、凡是提供线索公安机关通过侦察破获此案的，公安机关给予重奖；三、凡是提供有关枪支线索侦破此案的，公安机关给予重奖；四、凡是能提供线索破案的，即使与犯罪团伙有牵连也可以从轻或免予刑事责任；五、对提供线索者，公安机关一律严格保密。
　　原告鲁瑞庚看到电视台播出的悬赏通告后，想到案发当晚，其租住房的房主汪世平曾领来两人到东侧的杂物房藏匿，行迹十分可疑，认为这两个人可能就是杀人凶手。1999年12月 19日，鲁瑞庚向在东港市公安局工作的亲属提供了这个线索。12月21日，该亲属向东港市公安局局长作了汇报。之后，原告向前来了解情况的公安局侦查人员提供了这两名嫌疑人案发当天到该处藏匿的时间、当晚有人送来行李和食物的情况、两人的体貌特征及两人之间的对话、次日早晨又被一女人接走等重要线索，并指认了公安机关要求其辨认的部分涉案人员照片。公安机关根据鲁瑞庚提供的线索，排查了大量的犯罪嫌疑人，并经过大量的调查取证，在1992年12月25日得出结论，认定该线索确与“12·12”特大持枪杀人案有关，并决定按照悬赏通告的第二条奖励鲁瑞庚10万元人民币。鲁瑞庚在领取奖励时出具了收条。收条中写明：“收到市公安局用于奖励我提供12·12枪杀案线索预付现金10万元，如果我提供的线索与此案无关，则全部返回公安机关。”此后，公安机关经过一系列的侦察工作，于1999年12月26日零时采取行动，抓获了宋杰、黄河等犯罪嫌疑人。2000年1月4日，犯罪嫌疑人曲有健在图门市投案自首。随后，另一名犯罪嫌疑人马松也在图门市被抓捕归案。
　　另查，被害人家属已于1999年12月13日将用于奖励线索举报人的50万元人民币交给了东港市公安局。
　　上述事实，有被告公安局发布的通告、原告鲁瑞庚为被告公安局出具的收条、当事人的陈述笔录等为证。
　　丹东市中级人民法院认为：
　　《中华人民共和国民法通则》第八十四条规定：“债是按照合同的约定或者依照法律的规定，在当事人之间产生的权利和义务关系。享有权利的人是债权人，负有义务的人是债务人。债权人有权要求债务人按照合同的约定或者法律的规定履行义务。”
　　被告东港市公安局在为破获“12·12”特大持枪杀人案发布的悬赏通告中明确表示，要对提供有关线索和协助公安机关破案的人，给予一定数额的报酬。悬赏通告中的第一条和第二条是区别破案线索的不同情况，对提供线索人给予不同数额报酬的声明，两者不能兼得。原告鲁瑞庚确实向东港市公安局提供了该案的重要线索，公安机关根据其提供的线索，经过侦察破获了此案。鲁瑞庚所提供的线索，符合悬赏通告中第二条的情形，故鲁瑞庚应按悬赏通告的第二条取得悬赏报酬。公安机关实施抓捕行动前已经给付鲁瑞庚10万元作为奖励，鲁瑞庚收到预付的10万元奖金后，在出具的收条上写明；如提供线索与此案无关，该款全部退回。双方当时并未表明如果公安机关根据鲁瑞庚提供线索破案，还应再给付其被害人家属奖励的50万元人民币。因此，东港市公安局已按悬赏通告履行了自己的义务，鲁瑞庚再要求公安机关按照悬赏通告的第一条另兑现 50万元人民币奖励不能成立。鲁瑞庚提出的有关赔偿精神损失费的要求，因无法律依据，不予支持。
　　据此，丹东市中级人民法院于2001年8月16日作出判决如下：
　　驳回原告鲁瑞庚的诉讼请求。
　　案件受理费10510元由原告鲁瑞庚负担。
　　宣判后，鲁瑞庚不服，向辽宁省高级人民法院提出上诉。主要理由是：(1)我提供的线索是东港市公安局获得的唯一、直接、真实、可靠的线索，公安机关并没有排查大量的犯罪嫌疑人，只是对我提供的涉案嫌疑人进行了核对。在我辨认了涉嫌人员照片之后，东港市公安局即作出了抓捕决定，使案件一举告破。至此，我已全部完成了直接提供线索的行为，理应按照通告得到被害人家属奖励的50万元人民币。(2)悬赏通告的第一条是被害人家属给予提供破案线索人的奖励，悬赏通告的第二条是公安机关给予破案线索人的奖励，通告并没有声明两者不能兼得。东港市公安局依据通告第二条预付我10万元人民币奖金，应属于公安机关的奖励，并不是受害人家属给付的奖励。东港市公安局把被害人家属用于奖励提供线索人的50万元人民币给付据为已有，违背了在悬赏通告中向社会的承诺。(3)东港市公安局未按悬赏通告的第五条对提供线索人严格保密，使我及家人的精神造成了极大的伤害。请求撤销一审判决，判令东港市公安局立即给付被害人家属奖励的50 万元人民币，赔偿精神损失费5万元人民币，并承担一切诉讼费用。
　　东港市公安局认为一审法院的判决正确，应予维持。
　　辽宁省高级人民法院经审理进一步查明：
　　据当时的东港市公安局局长证实，鲁瑞庚所提供的破案线索，是公安机关获得的唯一重要的线索，根据该线索，公安机关迅速破获了此案。
　　被害人家属在电视台播出悬赏通告的当天，即将用于奖励提供破案线索的50万元奖金交给了东港市公安局。据被害人家属及亲属证实，被害人家属同意东港市公安局向社会发布通告；愿拿出50万元人民币奖励给任何提供有关案件线索的人，使公安机关能够尽快将案件侦破。被害人家属表示：关于50万元人民币能否用于悬赏通告第一条以外的情况，他们与东港市公安局并没有任何的约定。但明确表示：这50万元不是奖励给公安局的，也不是给公安局办案用的。被害人家属现在仍表示同意将这50万元人民币奖励提供破案线索的举报人。
　　辽宁省高级人民法院认为：
　　《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百零六条第一款规定：“公民、法人违反合同或者不履行其他义务的，应当承认民事责任。”
　　发布悬赏广告是一种民事法律行为，即广告人以广告的方式发布声明，承诺对任何按照声明的条件完成指定事项的人给予约定的报酬。任何人按照广告公布的条件，完成了广告所指定的行为，即对广告人享有报酬请求权。发出悬赏广告的人，则应该按照所发布广告的约定，向完成广告指定行为的人支付承诺的报酬。本案中东港市公安局通过东港市电视台发布通告中的部分内容，属于悬赏广告。通告虽然是以东港市公安局的名义发布的，但由于悬赏给付的报酬，是由被害人家属提供的，通告中的悬赏行为，实际上是受被害人家属委托的行为。被害人家属的本意是以50万元人民币直接奖励能够提供破案线索的举报人，希望能够有助于公安机关迅速破案。被害人家属并没有表示可以区别举报人提供线索的不同情形，给予举报人不同数额的奖励；也没有表示可以将该报酬用于办案或奖励办案人员。东港市公安局在悬赏通告中规定了其他悬赏情形，并没有得到被害人家属的授权或者委托。卢瑞庚按悬赏通告的要求，向东港市公安局提供了其知道的重要线索，致使公安机关根据该线索及时破获了“12·12”特大持枪杀人案，即完成了悬赏通告所指定的行为。据此，卢瑞庚就获得了取得被害人家属支付悬赏报酬的权利。被害人家属对鲁瑞庚按悬赏通告要求所完成提供线索的行为未提出异议，并且已将用于奖励的50万元人民币交给东港市公安局，且在案件破获后亦同意将该款奖励给提供线索的举报人，东港市公安局应该按照被害人家属的委托和以其名义向社会发布的悬赏通告，及时履行义务，向卢瑞庚全额给付50万元人民币的报酬。侦破刑事案件是公安机关的法定职责。公安机关在侦破刑事案件的过程中，应当保护和提倡公民举报和揭露犯罪的行为，积极地鼓励公民见义勇为，同违法行为做斗争的精神。东港市公安局以鲁瑞庚所提供的线索不符合悬赏通告所规定的条件为由，拒绝将被害人家属用于奖励的50万元全部给付卢瑞庚，并将其予以占有，超出了被害人家属的委托权限，也不符合其在悬赏通告中的承诺，没有任何的法律依据。鲁瑞庚对其主张权利，应予支持。
　　关于卢瑞庚主张按照悬赏通告中第一条和第二条的规定的奖励款可同时兼得，东港市公安局应再向其给付50万元报酬的问题，因悬赏广告是按照举报的具体效果，规定以不同的方式给予数额不同的奖励的，并未表示同一举报可以同时兼得其他奖励，卢瑞庚主张重复奖励的要求不予支持。东港市公安局已预付鲁瑞庚奖励款10万元人民币，其余40万元人民币应及时按照悬赏通告及被害人家属的委托给付卢瑞庚本人。
　　关于鲁瑞庚要求精神损害赔偿的问题，虽然因鲁瑞庚与东港市公安局就给付报酬的数额问题发生纠纷后，直接导致了本案诉讼，使提供线索的情况公开，在客观上产生了不利于保密及保护的情况，给其本人也造成了一定的精神压力。但东港市公安局并没有主动向社会披露鲁瑞庚的举报情况，鲁瑞庚也不能提供公安机关未保密的证据支持其主张，故不予支持。
　　综上，一审判决认定事实不清，证据不足，适用法律不当，应予改判。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条一款(三)项的规定，辽宁省高级人民法院于2002年4月12日作出判决：
　　一、撤销丹东市中级人民法院(2001)丹民初字第15号民事判决；
　　二、东港市公安局于本判决生效之日起10日内将被害人家属交付的人民币40万元给付鲁瑞庚；
　　三、驳回鲁瑞庚的其他诉讼请求。
　　一、二审案件受理费21020元，由东港市公安局负担16816元，鲁瑞庚负担4204元。
　　本判决为终审判决。

Lu Ruigeng v. the Public Security Bureau of Donggang Municipality
(Case on Announced Offer of Reward)

Plaintiff: Lu Ruigeng, male, 27 years old, worker, dwelling in Qianyang Town, Donggang Municipality, Liaoning Province

Plaintiff: the Public Security Bureau of Donggang Municipality, Liaoning Province, domiciled in Dadong Town, Donggang Municipality, Liaoning Province
Legal Representative: Liu Hua, director of the Public Security Bureau

Lu Ruigeng had a dispute with the Public Security Bureau of Donggang Municipality, Liaoning Province (hereinafter referred to as the Bureau) over the offer reward (hereinafter referred to as the reward offer) and therefore filed an action with the Intermediate People’s Court of Dandong Municipality, Liaoning Province.
The plaintiff alleged that: On December 13, 1999, the Bureau publicized to the whole city through the TV station of Donggang Municipality an announcement on “Dec. 12 gun murder”. On December 19, Lu provided clues to his relative who was working in the Bureau. The defendant, upon confirming the relevant clues, uncovered the “Dec. 12 gun murder”. However, after the case was uncovered, the defendant failed to perform its obligations of giving Lu 0. 5 million yuan of reward granted by the victim’s family members according to its announced offer of reward. Lu pleaded the court to adjudicate that the defendant pay 0.5 million yuan of reward as indicated in the announcement, 50, 000 yuan of losses due to emotional disturbance as well as the court costs of this case.
The defendant alleged that: The clues and evidences of the “Dec. 12 gun murder” as uncovered by the Bureau were not all presented by the plaintiff, so the plaintiff could only get either the reward of 0.5 million yuan granted by the victim’s family members or the Bureau’s reward for solving the case. As the Bureau has given 0. 1 million yuan of reward to the plaintiff according to Article 2 of the announcement, the plaintiff shall not request any more for the 0. 5 million yuan of reward as granted by the victim’s family members. There is no factual or legal ground for the plaintiff to request for any loss due to emotional disturbance.
The Intermediate People’s Court of Dandong Municipality found through hearing that:
On December 12, 1999, there was a particularly serious gun murder in Yong’an Street, Dadong Administrative District, Donggang Municipality. In order to uncover the case as soon as possible, the Bureau, upon obtaining the consent of the victim’s family members, publicized an offer of reward through Donggang TV station on December 13, 1999, major contents of which are: 1. Where anyone provides any clue that helps the direct resolution of the case in question, the victim’s family members would grant a reward of 0. 5 million yuan; 2. Where anyone provides any clue that helps the public security organ solve the case through investigation, the public security organ shall give a remarkable reward; 3. Where anyone provides the relevant firearms clues to uncover the case, the public security organ shall give him a remarkable reward; 4. Where anyone provides any clue to uncover the case, even if he has anything to do with the criminal gang, he can be subject to lighter criminal liabilities or be exempted from criminal liabilities; 5. Where any person provides clues, the public security organ shall keep it confidential without exception.
Lu remembered, upon seeing the announcement of reward on TV, that on the night when this case occurred, Wang Shiping, owner of the house that Lu rented, took two men to hide in the store room on the west side, who were quite susceptible, and believed that the aforesaid two men might be the murderers. On December 19, 1999, Lu provided this clue to his relative who was then working in the Bureau. On December 21, the relative reported it to the director of the Bureau. Thereafter, the plaintiff provided such important clues as the time when the two suspects hid in Wang’s place, that someone sent luggage and food on the very night, the two men’s appearance as well as their conversation and that they were picked up by a woman on the following day as well as confirmed the photos of some persons involved in the case according to the Bureau’s requirement. The Bureau, based on the clues as provided by Lu, investigated into and checked a lot of criminal suspects and reached a conclusion through a great deal of investigation on December 25, 1992 that the clues did have something to do with the “Dec. 12 gun murder” and thus decided to award Lu 0. 1 million yuan according to Article 2 of the reward offer. Lu produced a receipt when collecting his reward, which indicated that: “I hereby receive 0. 1 million yuan of cash reward in advance for providing clues relating to the ‘Dec. 12 gun murder’. If the clues I’ve provided are irrelevant to this case, all the reward shall be refunded to the public security organ.” Thereafter, the Bureau, through a series of investigation, took action on 0:00 am of December 26, 1999 and arrested such suspects as Song Jie and Huang He. On January 4, 2000, Qu Youjian, a criminal suspect, surrendered himself in Tumen City. Thereafter, Ma Song, another criminal suspect, was arrested in Tumen City.
It was also found through investigation that the victim’s family members delivered to the Bureau 0. 5 million yuan of reward for the informant on December 13, 1999.
The aforesaid facts are well supported by the reward offer as publicized by the Bureau, the receipt as produced by Lu to the Bureau as well as the transcripts of statement of the parties concerned.
The Intermediate People’s Court of Dandong Municipality believed that:

Article 84 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China prescribes that: A debt represents a special relationship of rights and obligations established between the parties concerned, either according to the agreed terms of contract or legal provisions. The party entitled to the rights shall be the creditor, and the party assuming the obligations shall be the debtor. The creditor shall have the right to demand the debtor to fulfill his obligations as specified by the contract or according to legal provisions.”

The Bureau explicitly expressed in its reward offer aimed at uncovering the “Dec. 12 gun murder” that any person who helps provide the relevant clues and assists the public security organ in uncovering the case shall be rewarded. Articles 1 and 2 of the reward offer are statements on different amounts of rewards to the clue provider in respect of different clues and that these rewards cannot be obtained concurrently. Lu did provide key clues to the Bureau and the latter, based thereon, uncovered the case through investigation. The clues as provided by Lu comply with the case as prescribed by Article 2 of the reward offer and therefore Lu shall get the reward as stipulated in Article 2 of the reward offer. The Bureau had paid Lu 0. 1 million yuan of reward before conducting any arrest. After Lu received the 0.1 million yuan of reward as paid in advance, it was indicated in the receipt that: if the clues as provided are irrelevant to this case, the reward shall all be refunded. There was no expression of intent by both parties at that time that if the Bureau uncovered the case on the basis of the clues provided by Lu, it shall pay Lu another 0.5 million yuan of reward granted by the victim’s family members. Therefore, the Bureau has fulfilled its obligations according to the reward offer. Lu’s claim is not well established that the Bureau shall grant another 0.5 million yuan of reward according to Article 1 of the reward offer. For lack of legal ground, Lu’s claim for compensating the losses due to emotional disturbance shall not be supported.
Therefore, the Intermediate People’s Court of Dandong Municipality adjudicated on August 16, 2001 that:
Lu’s claim shall be rejected.
The 10, 510 yuan of case acceptance fee shall be borne by Lu.
After the judgment was announced, Lu was dissatisfied with it and filed an appeal with the Higher People’s Court of Liaoning Province, largely on the following ground: (1) The clues as provided by Lu were the unique, direct, authentic and reliable clues that the Bureau had ever obtained. The Bureau just checked the criminal suspects as involved in this case whose information was provided by Lu rather than investigated into a large number of criminal suspects. Right after Lu identified the photos of the suspects, the Bureau made a decision on arrest and consequently uncovered the case at one stroke. By then, Lu finished his task of directly providing clues and shall thus obtain the 0. 5 million yuan of reward granted by the victim’s family members. (2) Article 1 of the reward offer is concerned with the reward as granted by the victim’s family members to the informant and Article 2 of the reward offer is concerned with the reward as granted by the public security organ to the informant. There was no statement that the two awards could not be concurrently obtained. The Bureau paid 0. 1 million yuan of reward to Lu in advance according to Article 2 of the Announcement, which shall be deemed as the reward of the public security organ rather than any reward as granted by the victim’s family members. The Bureau’s act of taking forcible possession of the 0.5 million yuan of reward as granted by the victim’s family members went against its commitment as made to the general public. (3) The Bureau failed to keep confidential the informant according to Article 5 of the reward offer and thus incurred enormous emotional pressure to Lu as well as his family members. Thus Lu pleaded the court to revoke the judgment of the first instance and adjudicated that the Bureau to immediately pay to Lu 0. 5 million yuan of reward as granted by the victim’s family members, 50, 000 yuan of losses due to emotional disturbance as well as bear all the case acceptance fees.

The bureau held that the judgment of the first instance is correct and thus shall be sustained.

The Higher People’s Court also found through hearing that:

Based on the confirmation made by the director of the Bureau, the clues as provided by Lu were at that time the only key clues that the Bureau had ever obtained and it was because of the clues that the Bureau uncovered the case efficiently.

The victim’s family members, on the very day when the reward offer was broadcast on TV, delivered 0.5 million yuan of reward for the informant to the Bureau. As is confirmed by the victim’s family members and relatives, the victim’s family members agreed that the Bureau publicized an announcement to the general public and expressed their willingness to award any person who provides any useful clue of this case with 0. 5 million yuan so that the Bureau could uncover the case as soon as possible. The victim’s family members also expressed their intent that: there is no stipulation between them and the Bureau on whether or not the 0. 5 million yuan could be applied to any circumstance other than that as prescribed in Article 1 therein, yet explicitly emphasized that the 0. 5 million yuan is not meant to reward the Bureau nor would it function as the fees for case handling. The victim’s family members have, so far, expressed their willingness to grant the 0. 5 million yuan of reward to the informant.

The Higher People’s Court of Liaoning Province held that:
Paragraph 1 of Article 106 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China prescribes that: “Citizens and legal persons who breach a contract or fail to fulfill other obligations shall bear civil liabilities.”

It is a civil act to publicize a reward offer in a form that an advertiser publicizes an offer of reward by means of announcement, promising a stipulated reward to any person who has fulfilled the designated task according to the announced requirements. Where anybody fulfills the task as indicated in the offer according to the relevant requirements therein, he has the right to claim for remunerations. Any person who has publicized a reward offer shall, according to the relevant stipulations of the publicized offer, pay the promised remunerations to the person who has fulfilled the designated task. In this case, the Bureau publicized part of the contents of the offer through the TV Station of Donggang Municipality and it is an offer of reward. However, although the offer was publicized in the name of the Bureau, the remunerations as prescribed therein were offered by the victim’s family members, indicating that the announcement to offer a reward is in fact an entrustment made by the victim’s family members. The original expression of the intent of the victim’s family members is to grant the reward of 0.5 million yuan directly to the tip-maker that provides the clues to help uncover the case so as to help the public security organ to uncover the case as soon as possible. The victim’s family members did not express any intent that the rewards shall be granted in different amounts by taking into consideration of the different circumstances where a tip-maker provides clues, nor did they show any willingness that the remunerations shall be employed in the case handling or rewarding the case handlers. The Bureau did not obtain any authorization or entrustment to stipulate any other circumstance to grant rewards in the reward offer. Lu provided key clues at hand to the Bureau according to the requirements in the reward offer and the latter, based thereon, uncovered the case in a timely manner, which has finished the task as designated in the reward offer. Therefore, Lu has the right to claim for the reward granted by the victim’s family members. The victim’s family members had no different opinion on Lu’s fulfillment of providing clues according to the requirements in the reward offer and agreed to grant the tip-maker the 0. 5 million yuan of reward they had delivered to the Bureau, so the Bureau shall, according to the entrustment of the victim’s family members as well as the reward offer that it had publicized to the general public in its own name, have performed its obligations of paying in full amount the reward of 0.5 million yuan in a timely manner. It is statutory functions and duties of the public security organ to investigate into and uncover criminal cases. The public security organ shall, in the process of investigating into and uncovering a criminal case, protect and encourage the citizens who tip off and disclose any criminal activity and positively encourage the citizens to act bravely for a just cause. The Bureau’s act of refusing to pay Lu the reward of 0. 5 million on the ground that Lu’s clues failed to meet the relevant requirements as prescribed in the reward offer and occupying the amount by itself overstepped the authority as entrusted by the victim’s family members and failed to comply with its commitment as made in the reward offer, thereby being short of legal ground. Thus Lu’s claim against the Bureau shall be sustained.
As to Lu’s claim that the rewards as stipulated in Articles 1 and 2 of the reward offer could be obtained concurrently, so the Bureau shall pay another 0.5 million yuan of reward to him, since the reward offer stipulated different amounts of rewards in different ways with regard to the actual effectiveness of the tip-off and had no implication that a same tip-off could be awarded with different rewards, Lu’s claim shall not be sustained. As the Bureau had paid 0. 1 million yuan of reward to Lu, the remnant 0. 4 million yuan shall be paid to Lu according to the reward offer as well as the entrustment of the victim’s family members in a timely manner.
As to the issue concerning Lu’s claim for losses due to emotional disturbance, although this action was directly raised out of the dispute between Lu and the Bureau over the payment of reward, and consequently the information on the provision of clues was publicized, which objectively went against the confidentiality and protection and thereby incurred a certain psychological pressure to Lu, the Bureau did not volunteer to provide the information on Lu’s tip-off and Lu failed to provide any evidence to prove that the Bureau failed to keep it confidential, so his claim shall not be sustained.
In conclusion, the facts were not clear, the evidences were not sufficient and the application of law was incorrect in the judgment of the first instance and it shall thus be overruled. The Higher People’s Court of Liaoning Province adjudicated on April 12, 2002, according to the provisions of item (3), paragraph 1, Article 152 of the Civil Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China that:
1. The Civil Judgment No. 15 of the Intermediate People’s Court of Dandong Municipality [2001] shall be revoked.
2. The Bureau shall, within 10 days as of the day when this Judgment comes into force, pay Lu 0. 4 million yuan as delivered by the victim’s family members;
3. Lu’s other claims shall be rejected.
The case acceptance fees of the first and second instances are 21, 020 yuan, 16, 816 of which shall be borne by the Bureau and 4, 204 yuan of which shall be borne by Lu.
This judgment shall be final.