The court refused to recognize attorney

Court Xiao San exposure steamy text messages

Court, a small U.S. commissioned attorney argued UNIT and small beauty lovers, plaintiff claims $ 9.9 million, a small U.S. and UNIT UNIT knowledge during their cohabitation taken out for two common life is not secret theft. So, the money should not also.

The court refused to recognize attorney UNIT UNIT and small beauty lover cohabitation relationship.

"Since it does not recognize cohabitation relationship, whether the alleged criminal?" Judge questions.

The plaintiff's attorney, said they had a report, but the police not to file civil case processing.

In order to prove the UNIT and small US lovers, the the small U.S. attorney in court read out ambiguous messages UNIT was sent to a small beauty: "Boy, get up yet? Boot" Lordy, we re-start is good ... "" kind of love called to let go and give up forever love ... "

Small U.S. attorney also applied for the attendance of witnesses, prove the UNIT and small beauty lovers prove that a small U.S. through the transfer and cash withdrawal in two ways took UNIT 99,000 yuan, the money is used for the two living expenses.

The UNIT attorney insisted UNIT unknowingly, small U.S. stole 9.9 million. The reason is that UNIT is a businessman, and business relationship with many bank cards, a small U.S. took a bank card and know the password easily.

Was dismissed three demanding money to small

Similar cases in the past, the so-called small three away 青春损失费 the nurturing fees, break up fees, as long as there is sufficient evidence, under normal circumstances, should also. This case is an exception, the divorced couple find three demanding money losing primary three won the case.

In July 2012, the judge handling the case against the case to the UNIT and Mary the Explanation UNIT and Mary always insisted that small U.S. took 9.9 million secret theft.

The court held that Mary denied the UNIT and small beauty lovers, said UNIT in illegal possession for the purpose of the secret theft of the plaintiff, the relatively large amount of property, the case of unjust enrichment requires a small U.S. return. Judge 's unjust enrichment and theft of legal relationship, Mary still insisted that small U.S. secret theft.

Based on this, the Tongnan County Court rejected the prosecution UNIT and Mary.

Receipt of the first instance ruling, UNIT and Mary to the City Court of Appeal. Late last year, the city in the Court of Final Appeal upheld the original ruling.