[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"public-home":3,"news-detail-professional-537":403},{"entity":4,"seo":355},{"siteConfig":5,"banners":28,"branches":48,"honors":81,"cases":113,"caseTypes":197,"caseIntro":230,"latestLawyerNews":231,"lawyerNews":246,"lawyerNewsMonthCount":299,"serviceTags":300,"serviceCategories":301,"subSlogan":12,"serviceIntro":331,"homeStats":332,"serviceProducts":345},{"id":6,"siteName":7,"siteDomain":8,"logoUrl":9,"faviconUrl":10,"slogan":11,"subSlogan":12,"aboutSummary":13,"aboutImage":14,"teamPhotoUrl":15,"hotline":16,"email":10,"headquartersAddress":17,"headquartersLng":18,"headquartersLat":19,"foundingYear":20,"creditCode":10,"sameAs":10,"wechatQrcode":21,"videoQrcode":22,"douyinQrcode":23,"xiaohongshuQrcode":24,"icpNumber":25,"psbNumber":26,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":27},1,"四川卓安律师事务所","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F083753d8-b587-4105-a0e2-9da8eacdcfd5.png",null,"为生命辩护，为自由辩护","一家专注刑事，走「专门」路线的律师所","卓安律师事务所由执业近30年的成安博士于2013年发起设立，是全国最早一批专注刑事的刑事专业律师事务所之一。一心一意，只做刑事，不做综合所，不接非刑事业务。以专业化、精品化、一体化运营为全国客户提供刑事辩护、刑事控告、企业刑事合规与风险防控法律服务。","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002Fffef6a8d-e19d-44df-a8f1-08ece0042bd7.jpg","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F87a0be21-3874-4f87-8586-63a62fd10a31.jpg","4000-148-149","四川省成都高新区天府二街蜀都中心1号楼19楼1902-1904室",104.06749,30.5524575,"2003","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002Fb86da287-bc41-4285-aa3c-0602065190d2.jpg","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F77233542-14b7-4884-a78f-8c0d531d096d.png","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F616aa748-5454-49dd-a09d-a73925d672fe.png","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002F4b5bc9ea-d513-4287-8aca-0a589e539381.png","蜀ICP备2026035071号-1","川公网安备51019002009895号","2026-06-22 21:30:32",[29,34,39,42,45],{"id":6,"createdAt":30,"updatedAt":30,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":33,"linkUrl":32,"sort":6,"status":6},"2026-06-22 21:33:46",0,"","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002Ff8e758a5-0784-4769-aa52-97ec64cc1216.jpg",{"id":35,"createdAt":36,"updatedAt":36,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":37,"linkUrl":32,"sort":38,"status":6},3,"2026-07-14 14:39:20","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F557b3e37-70b1-4aa8-88d6-9a07b61969b1.png",2,{"id":40,"createdAt":30,"updatedAt":30,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":41,"linkUrl":32,"sort":35,"status":6},5,"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F7512d49c-e31a-4bd1-a436-00de2d2d960f.png",{"id":43,"createdAt":30,"updatedAt":30,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":44,"linkUrl":32,"sort":43,"status":6},4,"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F27e2b0bf-cf18-4dd0-bb77-5853e0673a1b.png",{"id":38,"createdAt":46,"updatedAt":46,"deleted":31,"title":32,"subtitle":32,"imageUrl":47,"linkUrl":32,"sort":40,"status":6},"2026-07-14 14:39:06","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F3c8f1908-114d-44bf-9e33-2818d8bfce89.png",[49,55,60,65,70,75],{"id":35,"createdAt":50,"updatedAt":51,"deleted":31,"code":52,"name":53,"address":17,"phone":16,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":54,"status":6},"2026-06-16 13:55:38","2026-08-24 21:29:48","chengdu","成都总所",-1,{"id":6,"createdAt":56,"updatedAt":56,"deleted":31,"code":57,"name":58,"address":59,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-22 21:46:09","kunming","昆明","云南省昆明市五华区和谐广场和谐B座第49层4909室",{"id":38,"createdAt":61,"updatedAt":61,"deleted":31,"code":62,"name":63,"address":64,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-22 21:46:31","shenzheng","深圳","广东省深圳市龙华区民塘路328号龙华区数字创新中心A座14层04、05号",{"id":43,"createdAt":66,"updatedAt":66,"deleted":31,"code":67,"name":68,"address":69,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-26 13:55:59","chongqing","重庆","重庆市渝北区湖山路虹陶大厦22层13-17号",{"id":40,"createdAt":71,"updatedAt":71,"deleted":31,"code":72,"name":73,"address":74,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-26 13:56:12","dazhou","达州","四川省达州市通川区永兴路146号恒基大厦二楼",{"id":76,"createdAt":77,"updatedAt":77,"deleted":31,"code":78,"name":79,"address":80,"phone":32,"thumbnail":32,"lng":10,"lat":10,"sort":31,"status":6},6,"2026-06-26 13:56:31","xining","西宁","青海省西宁市城东区南山东路创新创业大厦A座15楼",[82,88,94,100,105,109],{"id":6,"createdAt":83,"updatedAt":83,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":84,"thumbnail":85,"content":10,"publishTime":86,"sort":87,"status":6},"2026-06-26 14:01:11","四川卓安律师事务所党支部—“四川省律师行业党建标准化律师事务所党组织”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F26\u002F15b73500-33d0-4eae-ae82-192e3f44d1c3.jpg","2026-07-27 21:53:52",-3,{"id":38,"createdAt":89,"updatedAt":89,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":90,"thumbnail":91,"content":10,"publishTime":92,"sort":93,"status":6},"2026-06-28 22:22:47","四川卓安律师事务所——\"四川省律师行业文化名所\"","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F26\u002F3e628c5a-4df8-42d2-8667-d107a295f786.jpg","2026-08-26 17:05:47",-2,{"id":95,"createdAt":96,"updatedAt":96,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":97,"thumbnail":98,"content":10,"publishTime":99,"sort":54,"status":6},24,"2026-09-01 14:02:47","“司法云庭荟”法律职业共同体线上交流平台建设的全新创新做法入选最高人民检察院政治部《全国检察机关教育培训创新100例》","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F09\u002F01\u002F03c5415b-2799-4097-8c6b-95a6089d5a3c.jpg","2026-09-01 14:01:51",{"id":35,"createdAt":101,"updatedAt":101,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":102,"thumbnail":103,"content":10,"publishTime":104,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-06-28 22:23:01","成安律师被评为“成都市优秀律师”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F26\u002Fdae82b8c-327b-437e-8c37-bc241a6bf780.jpg","2026-08-26 17:07:20",{"id":43,"createdAt":101,"updatedAt":101,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":106,"thumbnail":107,"content":10,"publishTime":108,"sort":31,"status":6},"成安律师被聘请为“成都市人民政府第一届行政复议委员会委员”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F27\u002F92313a8b-8b6e-4cff-9c80-ec82331e9bc0.jpg","2026-08-27 14:01:26",{"id":40,"createdAt":101,"updatedAt":101,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"title":110,"thumbnail":111,"content":10,"publishTime":112,"sort":31,"status":6},"成安律师被聘请为“日知公益学习社团青年刑辩人才计划特聘导师”","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F27\u002Fb8c6c1f9-16e5-4f16-b3c3-a8833b9d4275.jpg","2026-08-27 14:03:31",[114,121,128,132,139,147,152,157,162,167,172,179,184,188,192],{"id":115,"title":116,"thumbnail":117,"summary":118,"caseTypeId":40,"caseTypeName":119,"caseTypeCode":120},679,"X某涉嫌毒品犯罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，获减少罪名认定","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F26\u002Ff48b1248-9e8e-4e41-9878-594db86d4c37.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名： 贩卖、 制造毒品罪 ， 非法持有毒品罪 ， 容留他人吸毒罪 结果： 法院采纳部分辩护意见， 主犯死刑 改判死缓，三名 从犯 获大幅减刑 亮点： 成功推翻非法持有毒品罪指控，减少罪名认定 揭示关键物证","毒品犯罪优秀案例","drug_crime",{"id":122,"title":123,"thumbnail":124,"summary":125,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":126,"caseTypeCode":127},678,"Z某涉嫌单位行贿罪、串通招投标罪，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，获缓刑","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F26\u002Fac43f3a8-ed7b-4975-848a-06cd1b6528a5.png","【案情简述】 2019年至 2021年期间，某科技股份有限公司法定代表人Z某为感谢时任石嘴山市某局党组书记、局长F某(已判决)在某科技股份有限公司承揽石嘴山市某监管项目、污染源企业全过程监管项目(一期和二期)及工程款拨付等方面提供的帮助，以","经济犯罪优秀案例","economic_crime",{"id":129,"title":130,"thumbnail":10,"summary":131,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":126,"caseTypeCode":127},677,"D某涉嫌串通投标罪，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，成功取保候审","一、【案情简述】 嫌疑人D某于14年至18年期间在成都某建筑公司担任业务员，主要工作内容为代表公司与相关招标代理人、实际施工人等沟通、拉业务同时代表公司参与各建设项目的招投标工作，并代公司收取相应的借用资质费、招投标资料费等费用。2021年",{"id":133,"title":134,"thumbnail":135,"summary":136,"caseTypeId":35,"caseTypeName":137,"caseTypeCode":138},676,"H某涉嫌参加黑社会性质组织等罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师成功辩护，获减轻处罚","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F26\u002Fedab7283-e35c-409b-8122-2c6c9fe1283e.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：参加黑社会性质组织罪（变更涉恶）、寻衅滋事罪、非法拘禁罪、敲诈勒索罪 结果： · 成功将“黑社会性质组织罪”变更为“恶势力犯罪集团”； · 敲诈勒索罪、非法拘禁罪指控被法院驳回； · 寻衅滋事罪仅认定","涉黑涉恶优秀案例","gang_crime",{"id":140,"title":141,"thumbnail":142,"summary":143,"caseTypeId":144,"caseTypeName":145,"caseTypeCode":146},675,"F某涉嫌帮助信息网络罪，四川卓安律事务所律师团队为其辩护，撤销案件","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F26\u002F4b71eb76-73b9-4634-8468-3b4fdc258de4.png","【案情简述】 当事人涉嫌帮信罪被移送审查起诉，家属到律所委托代理，办案律师担任当事人审查起诉阶段的辩护人。 【办案过程】 受委托人的委托，办案律师多次会见当事人，在会见时详细的了解了案情概况，梳理了案件脉络，并对委托人就当事人近况进行了简短",7,"网络新型犯罪优秀案例","cyber_crime",{"id":148,"title":149,"thumbnail":150,"summary":151,"caseTypeId":144,"caseTypeName":145,"caseTypeCode":146},674,"Z某涉嫌帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪一案,四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，获取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F26\u002F4bc54bd5-530f-4571-bb91-b1764056f10c.png","一、案情简介 2021年7月，嫌疑人Z某接到其朋友Y某电话，声称想借用其银行卡过几笔钱用于购买比特币，同时可以给予其一些报酬。Z某因碍于朋友情面且因可以获得一些报酬于是就爽快答应了朋友Y某的请求。随后其朋友Y某利用Z某的银行账户、手机银行等",{"id":153,"title":154,"thumbnail":155,"summary":156,"caseTypeId":144,"caseTypeName":145,"caseTypeCode":146},673,"Z某某帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所团队律师辩护，获得轻判","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F26\u002F6a14490f-6000-4231-b1bc-b6b7e49896e1.png","一、【案情简述】 检察机关指控：2021年至2022年期间，F某（已判）从事虚假几份兑换商城，委托被告人z某某提供技术。T某于2021年9月开始加如与F某某共同经营。经营模式：由Z某某架设一个虚假积分商城，F某某T某通过联系短信运营商群发虚",{"id":158,"title":159,"thumbnail":160,"summary":161,"caseTypeId":144,"caseTypeName":145,"caseTypeCode":146},672,"X某涉嫌帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，获从轻处罚","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F26\u002F7cb8848d-9acb-4179-bb2d-9d97da88c122.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪 结果：判处有期徒刑九个月（已扣除先行羁押6日），罚金五千元。 亮点： 1. 成功认定自首情节，依法从轻处罚 2. 通过详实的证据链反驳“主观明知”推定，避免更重量刑 3. 针对",{"id":163,"title":164,"thumbnail":165,"summary":166,"caseTypeId":144,"caseTypeName":145,"caseTypeCode":146},671,"Ｈ某涉嫌帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，获不批捕并取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F26\u002F71406e62-2a27-46bb-b2da-b2d62c69d2c4.png","一、案情简介 H某在其浙江老家，当地一直有许多沿海一带的人来收购电话卡、银行卡等。H某一位成都的朋友正好在做倒卖公司公账银行卡的生意，因此希望H某帮其寻找买家。H某遂帮其牵线，介绍了一位姓名不详的江浙人给其成都的朋友，并帮忙将交易价款转给成",{"id":168,"title":169,"thumbnail":170,"summary":171,"caseTypeId":43,"caseTypeName":126,"caseTypeCode":127},670,"M某涉嫌组织、领导传销活动罪，四川卓安律所钟灵柔律师为其辩护，在批准逮捕后最终获得适用缓刑的量刑建议并取保候审","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F26\u002Fdda305e0-6546-4f71-9536-2bef2b87fbf4.png","一、案情简介 涉及上亿资金的虚拟币投资平台，M某因涉嫌组织、领导传销活动罪被检察院批准逮捕。 二、办案过程 承办律师在接受当事人家属委托之后，立即前往办案单位递交委托手续并开展会见工作，客观公正地分析了案件情况。同时承办律师与承办人就案件存",{"id":173,"title":174,"thumbnail":175,"summary":176,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":177,"caseTypeCode":178},669,"W某涉嫌贪污罪，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，获轻判","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F26\u002F59efab79-758e-4ba5-8c49-a30e75e5d97d.png","一、【案情简述】 2019 年4月，被告人S某通过朋友介绍认识了被告人Z某，S某以能源集团收购加油站负责人的身份，提出能源集团收购J加油站的意向，并提出如收购完成，能源集团领导将从套取的资金中收取好处费人民币 500万元(以下未标明币种的均","职务犯罪优秀案例","duty_crime",{"id":180,"title":181,"thumbnail":182,"summary":183,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":177,"caseTypeCode":178},668,"X某涉嫌贪污罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，获从轻处罚","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F23\u002Fb40331c5-0aeb-4e4d-bce7-3e6dee0fe939.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：贪污罪 结果：被告人X某（原医保局审核股股长）被判处有期徒刑三年六个月，罚金二十万元。 亮点： 1. 成功将被告人定性为 从犯 ，减轻处罚 2. 排除部分涉案金额（证言中的两笔资金未被认定） 3. 全",{"id":185,"title":186,"thumbnail":10,"summary":187,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":177,"caseTypeCode":178},667,"周某某涉嫌贪污罪、受贿罪一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，成功核减犯罪数额并获从宽量刑","一、案件受贿罪结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：贪污罪、受贿罪 结果：数罪并罚判处有期徒刑18年，罚金530万元（起诉指控贪污7099.5482万元，辩护后法院采纳部分意见核减数额）。 亮点： 1. 成功论证部分阶段不构成贪污罪主体资格，核减",{"id":189,"title":190,"thumbnail":10,"summary":191,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":177,"caseTypeCode":178},666,"L某涉嫌贪污罪、受贿罪、巨额财产来源不明罪，四川卓安律师事务所律师团队为其辩护，获轻判","律师工作： 阅卷阅卷，不停的阅卷 案件焦点： 案件程序问题：本案监委是否有管辖职权； 犯罪数额计算，这些数字对不对 案件结果： 做到了每个罪名的法定最低档量刑了 1.犯 贪污罪 ，判处 有期徒刑 一年，并处十 罚金 万元; 2.犯 受贿罪 ",{"id":193,"title":194,"thumbnail":195,"summary":196,"caseTypeId":38,"caseTypeName":177,"caseTypeCode":178},665,"陈某涉嫌贪污罪二审改判一案，四川卓安律师事务所律师为其辩护，刑期由13年改判为11年","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F23\u002F3afa7596-457f-43b0-93e2-8c05f101c723.png","一、案件结果、亮点、焦点、封面语 罪名：贪污罪（二审改判） 结果：刑期由13年改判为11年，罚金100万元维持 亮点： 成功挑战贪污罪定性争议，推动法院对\"公共财产\"性质进行专项审查 通过精细化数额计算辩护，核减指控金额达76%（1353万",[198,201,204,207,210,215,218,224],{"id":38,"code":178,"name":177,"summary":199,"keywords":200},"覆盖贪污罪、受贿罪、行贿罪、挪用公款罪、滥用职权罪、玩忽职守罪等。","监察留置｜公职人员辩护｜数额认定",{"id":35,"code":138,"name":137,"summary":202,"keywords":203},"覆盖组织、领导、参加黑社会性质组织罪，以及寻衅滋事、敲诈勒索、聚众斗殴等。","黑恶性质认定｜组织层级｜罪数认定",{"id":43,"code":127,"name":126,"summary":205,"keywords":206},"覆盖诈骗罪、合同诈骗罪、非法吸收公众存款罪、非法经营罪、虚开增值税专用发票罪等。","企业家辩护｜涉案金额｜刑民交叉",{"id":40,"code":120,"name":119,"summary":208,"keywords":209},"覆盖走私、贩卖、运输、制造毒品罪，非法持有毒品罪及制毒物品犯罪。","毒品数量认定｜主观明知｜死刑辩护",{"id":76,"code":211,"name":212,"summary":213,"keywords":214},"property_crime","财产犯罪优秀案例","覆盖盗窃罪、抢劫罪、诈骗罪、敲诈勒索罪、职务侵占罪、挪用资金罪等。","非法占有目的｜涉案金额｜退赔谅解",{"id":144,"code":146,"name":145,"summary":216,"keywords":217},"覆盖帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪、电信网络诈骗、侵犯公民个人信息罪、开设赌场罪等。\n","电子数据审查｜主观明知｜资金流水",{"id":219,"code":220,"name":221,"summary":222,"keywords":223},8,"corporate_compliance","性犯罪优秀案例","覆盖强奸罪、强制猥亵罪、猥亵儿童罪、组织卖淫罪、传播淫秽物品罪等。\n","言词证据｜未成年人案件｜隐私保护",{"id":225,"code":226,"name":227,"summary":228,"keywords":229},9,"criminal_complaint","人身权利犯罪优秀案例","覆盖故意杀人罪、故意伤害罪、非法拘禁罪、绑架罪、过失致人死亡罪等。","正当防卫｜因果关系｜伤情鉴定","多年来，卓安专注刑事领域，累计办理刑事案件8000余件，依法为当事人争取无罪、取保候审、缓刑、不起诉、从轻及减轻处罚等结果。",{"id":232,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":234,"city":235,"caseType":236,"title":237,"thumbnail":238,"content":10,"publishTime":239,"sort":10,"status":10,"lawyerNames":240,"lawyers":241,"lawyer":245},790,"2026-10-13 13:51:35",78,"白山中院+吉林省看守所","受贿罪","2026年10月12、13日 彭栖伟 受贿罪——卓安（重庆）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F13\u002Faeff63f5-4734-44b5-83fc-4fe483db46a8.png","2026-10-13 14:12:39","彭栖伟",[242],{"id":234,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":240,"position":243,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":244,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"专职律师","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F18\u002Fe7e138d0-374e-40f4-8a64-17f2eaa16ca6.jpg",{"id":234,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":240,"position":243,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":244,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},[247,250,263,275,287],{"id":232,"createdAt":233,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":234,"city":235,"caseType":236,"title":237,"thumbnail":238,"content":10,"publishTime":239,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":240,"lawyers":248},[249],{"id":234,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":240,"position":243,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":244,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},{"id":251,"createdAt":233,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":252,"city":253,"caseType":254,"title":255,"thumbnail":256,"content":10,"publishTime":257,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":258,"lawyers":259},789,43,"宣汉县看守所","诈骗罪","2026年10月13日 晏建强 诈骗罪——卓安律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F13\u002F9784a2ad-b503-4c72-8998-7d785f08998c.png","2026-10-13 14:11:53","晏建强",[260],{"id":252,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":258,"position":261,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":262,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"刑事四部 部长","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F18\u002Fab5ccf97-3ef1-4db5-a101-a5f001ec2350.jpg",{"id":264,"createdAt":233,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":265,"city":266,"caseType":267,"title":268,"thumbnail":269,"content":10,"publishTime":270,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":271,"lawyers":272},788,84,"重庆永川区看守所+永川区检察院","寻衅滋事罪","2026年10月12日 罗杨 寻衅滋事罪——卓安（重庆）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F13\u002F3df2920f-f2e5-4b8d-ae33-50efa7329c5d.png","2026-10-12 13:59:59","罗杨",[273],{"id":265,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":271,"position":243,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":274,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F08\u002F20\u002F71393bb0-30d8-4028-ad17-529bfa81f91d.jpg",{"id":276,"createdAt":233,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":277,"city":278,"caseType":279,"title":280,"thumbnail":281,"content":10,"publishTime":282,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":283,"lawyers":284},787,98,"深圳市宝安区看守所","非法经营罪","2026年10月12日 彭乐程 非法经营罪——卓安（深圳）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F13\u002Fd8cbbe6b-17e3-472d-8660-19788cf7258d.png","2026-10-12 13:59:15","彭乐程",[285],{"id":277,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":283,"position":243,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":286,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F09\u002F09\u002F3e3833d3-0396-48d7-9b5f-7729393a0976.jpg",{"id":288,"createdAt":233,"updatedAt":233,"deleted":31,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"lawyerId":289,"city":290,"caseType":291,"title":292,"thumbnail":293,"content":10,"publishTime":294,"sort":31,"status":6,"lawyerNames":295,"lawyers":296},786,10,"深圳市罗湖区人民检察院","猥亵儿童罪","2026年10月12日 陈志伟 猥亵儿童罪——卓安（深圳）律师事务所","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F10\u002F13\u002F8b14a2f4-88d1-4d09-a2e1-385982107474.png","2026-10-12 13:58:30","陈志伟",[297],{"id":289,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":10,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10,"schemaExtra":10,"name":295,"position":243,"branchId":10,"categoryId":10,"avatar":298,"content":10,"sort":10,"status":10},"\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F06\u002Fd8b580fc-0c38-493a-aa21-2e3b581a7b9e.png",40,[],[302,307,312,317,322,327],{"id":40,"createdAt":303,"updatedAt":304,"deleted":31,"code":305,"name":306,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":32,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":31,"status":6},"2026-08-17 10:39:04","2026-10-13 16:28:19","XINGSHIHEGUI","服务品质",{"id":6,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":308,"deleted":31,"code":309,"name":310,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":311,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":6,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:28:13","criminal","服务范围","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002Fca98263c-68cd-4768-8c9e-ccc0086eade9.jpg",{"id":38,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":313,"deleted":31,"code":314,"name":315,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":316,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":38,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:29:23","key_crime","服务方式","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F5df41c7a-813a-48db-8eb7-057f5019ab32.jpg",{"id":35,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":318,"deleted":31,"code":319,"name":320,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":321,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":35,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:29:52","corporate","服务流程","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F40c30169-fc75-40bc-a144-8f9b4261f108.jpg",{"id":144,"createdAt":323,"updatedAt":324,"deleted":31,"code":325,"name":326,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":32,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":43,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:30:32","2026-10-13 16:30:42","fuwutiyan","服务体验",{"id":219,"createdAt":328,"updatedAt":328,"deleted":31,"code":329,"name":330,"summary":32,"displayTags":10,"icon":32,"thumbnail":10,"content":10,"sort":40,"status":6},"2026-10-13 16:31:42","fuwushoufei","服务收费原则","卓安以刑事专业能力为企业提供风险识别、合规治理、专项培训与危机处置支持，帮助企业在复杂经营环境中守住法律底线。",[333,336,339,342],{"value":334,"label":335},"8000+","成功案例",{"value":337,"label":338},"600+","锦旗感谢",{"value":340,"label":341},"100+","法律服务产品",{"value":343,"label":344},"6","全国分所",[346,349,352],{"title":347,"desc":348},"刑事诉讼类服务","律师会见、法律咨询、专家论证、案件指导\u002F协作、立案\u002F取保\u002F不起诉\u002F无罪\u002F罪轻等全阶段辩护。",{"title":350,"desc":351},"刑事风控类服务","风控计划、风控评估、执法调查应对、企业全生命周期刑事风控与重点行业\u002F领域风控。",{"title":353,"desc":354},"刑事普法类服务","政策宣讲、知识付费、轻法服务（线上咨询、文书范本、解决方案）等上百项精准化产品。",{"title":356,"description":13,"keywords":357,"canonical":358,"image":10,"jsonLd":359},"四川卓安律师事务所 - 专注刑事辩护的专业律所","刑事辩护,律师事务所,四川卓安","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F",[360],{"@context":361,"@graph":362},"https:\u002F\u002Fschema.org",[363,369],{"@type":364,"@id":365,"url":358,"name":7,"inLanguage":366,"publisher":367},"WebSite","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#website","zh-CN",{"@id":368},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#organization",{"@type":370,"@id":368,"name":7,"url":358,"logo":371,"image":371,"description":13,"telephone":16,"email":10,"foundingDate":20,"taxID":10,"inLanguage":366,"address":372,"geo":375,"department":377},"LegalService","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F07\u002F083753d8-b587-4105-a0e2-9da8eacdcfd5.png",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":17,"addressCountry":374},"PostalAddress","CN",{"@type":376,"latitude":19,"longitude":18},"GeoCoordinates",[378,383,387,391,395,399],{"@type":379,"@id":380,"name":53,"image":10,"telephone":16,"address":381,"parentOrganization":382},"LocalBusiness","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-chengdu",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":17},{"@id":368},{"@type":379,"@id":384,"name":58,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":385,"parentOrganization":386},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-kunming",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":59},{"@id":368},{"@type":379,"@id":388,"name":63,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":389,"parentOrganization":390},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-shenzheng",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":64},{"@id":368},{"@type":379,"@id":392,"name":68,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":393,"parentOrganization":394},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-chongqing",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":69},{"@id":368},{"@type":379,"@id":396,"name":73,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":397,"parentOrganization":398},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-dazhou",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":74},{"@id":368},{"@type":379,"@id":400,"name":79,"image":10,"telephone":32,"address":401,"parentOrganization":402},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F#branch-xining",{"@type":373,"streetAddress":80},{"@id":368},{"entity":404,"seo":417},{"id":405,"createdAt":10,"updatedAt":406,"deleted":10,"seoTitle":32,"seoDescription":407,"seoKeywords":408,"schemaExtra":10,"typeId":43,"title":409,"thumbnail":410,"content":411,"publishTime":412,"sort":10,"status":10,"newsType":413},537,"2026-09-18 11:08:30","替公司上门讨债被指控寻衅滋事，家属最想不通的是要自己的钱怎么就成了犯罪。核心争议点不在讨债合不合法，而在行为有没有落进《刑法》第 293 条列举的四种情形，有没有破坏社会秩序，有没有达到情节门槛。三关有一关过不去，罪名就不成立；三","寻衅滋事罪,上门讨债,债务纠纷,软暴力,恶势力,涉黑涉恶犯罪,刑事辩护,卓安律师事务所","家人替公司上门讨债被定寻衅滋事罪，哪些情形其实不构成犯罪？","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F09\u002F18\u002F95a036ad-8659-447f-942e-ccacbc799f90.jpg","\u003Cp style=\"text-align: center;\">\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-family: 宋体;\">因债务纠纷引发的催讨行为在什么情况下不入罪，与被指控之后的六个辩点\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: center;\">\u003Cspan style=\"color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-family: 宋体;\">卓安律师事务所·涉黑涉恶犯罪专业委员会出品\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"> \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>【摘要】\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">替公司上门讨债被指控寻衅滋事，家属最想不通的是要自己的钱怎么就成了犯罪。核心争议点不在讨债合不合法，而在行为有没有落进《刑法》第 293 条列举的四种情形，有没有破坏社会秩序，有没有达到情节门槛。三关有一关过不去，罪名就不成立；三关都过得去，量刑还会因被贴上恶势力标签而从重。第 1374 号戴颖、蒯军案确认，因债务纠纷实施的行为一般不认定为寻衅滋事，例外只发生在经批评制止后继续实施、行为发生在开放场所并为多人知晓的情形；第 1774 号陈某甲案则从入罪一端收紧标准，强调逐项对照行为类型与量化门槛，防止把该罪当口袋使用，被纠集参与、结果有限的三名被告人最终无罪。卓安办理的讨债类案件沿同一路径，把指控事实逐起拆开核对，认定由多起降为个别起数。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch1>\u003Cstrong>一、替公司去要工程款，为什么会被指控寻衅滋事罪\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">“公司被别人欠了几百万工程款，去要自己的钱，怎么会变成寻衅滋事？”“五起事实里有两起我家人根本不在现场，为什么也算在他头上？”“员工去讨债，法律上到底有没有说法？”这是讨债类案件家属问得最多的三个问题。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">W 某是某建设集团有限公司的实际控制人，长期从事工程项目承接与建材供应。2014 年至 2019 年间，公司多个项目的工程款、材料款、保证金被长期拖欠，W 某多次安排员工前往欠款方的办公场所、项目现场催讨。公司有相对固定的员工队伍，催讨通常由项目经理或行政人员带队，人数三到五人。催讨方式包括在欠款方办公室长时间停留、要求负责人当面答复、在工地门口拉横幅、与欠款方人员发生言语争执，其中两次催讨过程中发生了推搡与轻微肢体冲突。W 某本人并非每次到场，参与方式主要是电话安排、事后听取汇报。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">公安机关以涉嫌寻衅滋事罪立案，检察机关指控的事实共五起，涉及五名不同的欠款方，指控逻辑是 W 某纠集多人，以“软暴力”方式多次向他人施加压力，属于追逐、拦截、辱骂、恐吓他人情节恶劣，以及强拿硬要或者任意损毁、占用公私财物情节严重，构成寻衅滋事罪；同时主张这些行为属于恶势力性质的违法犯罪活动，应当从重处罚。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">把这些指控拆开看，需要回答的法律问题有两个：因债务纠纷引发的催讨行为，在什么情况下依法不认定为寻衅滋事；被指控之后，可以从哪些地方把事实逐起核减下来。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch1>\u003Cstrong>二、《刑事审判参考》两起案例：讨债行为的出罪规则与寻衅滋事的入罪门槛\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">一起案例从出罪一端划边界，一起案例从入罪一端收紧标准，两起合起来，正好回答家属最关心的那个问题：哪些情形其实不构成犯罪。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>2.1 第 1374 号戴颖、蒯军案：债务纠纷一般不认定寻衅滋事，例外在哪里\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">被告人戴颖为向被害人索要债务，于 2015 年 2 月 18 日至 5 月 1 日纠集蒯军等人，每天安排一人或数人与被害人同吃、同住，并通过盯、跟、随同出行等手段迫使对方还债。其间被害人的近亲属多次报警，公安机关提出不得限制、剥夺人身自由的处理意见后，戴颖等人仍然继续实施。此后又将被害人睡觉的沙发搬到厂房外，砸坏厂房内的取暖器、水壶等物。5 月 2 日，被害人自杀身亡于厂房内。蒯军参与限制自由三十天左右。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">一审认定构成非法拘禁罪，分别判处有期徒刑二年六个月、一年九个月。二审改变了定性：限制人身自由与剥夺人身自由是两个不同概念，本案被害人不论身体还是心理均未达到被控制而失去自由的程度，同吃同住同行并未达到剥夺自由的程度，不构成非法拘禁罪；但长期跟随、看管使被害人产生心理强制、恐慌，并伴随损毁财物的行为，属于恐吓他人的寻衅滋事行为，且情节恶劣，应以寻衅滋事罪定罪。刑期维持原判。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">这份裁判理由里有两条对家属最有用的规则。一条是出罪规则：行为人因婚恋、家庭、邻里、债务等纠纷，实施殴打、辱骂、恐吓他人或者损毁、占用他人财物等行为的，一般不认定为寻衅滋事。另一条是例外的成立条件：经有关部门批评制止或者处理处罚后，继续实施前列行为，破坏社会秩序的，才属于除外情形。该案的例外之所以成立，是因为行为发生在宾馆、工厂等开放场所并为多人知晓，且经被害人家人报警、民警多次要求正常讨债后仍继续实施。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>2.2 第 1774 号陈某甲案：入罪门槛要逐项对照，被纠集者可以不作犯罪处理\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">广东省饶平县五名被告人骑摩托车与三名未成年被害人相遇，因认为对方在路上驾驶摩托车系招摇耍帅而心生不满，追逐、拦截并殴打被害人，还砸坏对方摩托车。经鉴定，两名被害人的损伤程度均不构成轻微伤，被砸摩托车维修费用总额为 726 元。一审以寻衅滋事罪判处五名被告人有期徒刑九个月至一年。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">二审改判：陈某甲、邱某翰免予刑事处罚，陈某跃、王某鹏、陈某锐无罪。裁判理由把每个人的行为与《刑法》第 293 条以及司法解释的入罪门槛逐项对照：在殴打这一项上，未造成轻微伤以上后果，所持斧头虽足以致人伤残死亡但殴打时未直接持斧击打身体，所持铝合金柄扫把不应认定为凶器；在财物损毁这一项上，维修费用 726 元未达到司法解释规定的二千元标准。三名只参与第二阶段砸车、被纠集参与且作用有限、结果有限的被告人，依照《刑法》第 13 条但书认定属于情节显著轻微危害不大，宣告无罪。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">这份裁判理由还专门提出一段方法上的要求：要注意严格适用司法解释列举的相对明确的多次、持凶器等入罪标准，慎重适用“造成恶劣社会影响”等带有评价色彩的条款以及各条的兜底条款，避免社会危害性的实质性判断标准被空置，防止该罪名被不当扩张适用。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>2.3 两案给出的三条审查规则：行为类型、法益后果、情节门槛\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Ctable style=\"width: auto;\">\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">审查层次\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">需要核实什么\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">核不实的后果\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">行为类型\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">每一笔事实能不能归入刑法第 293 条列举的四种情形\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">归不进去的，该起事实不计入，见第 1774 号的逐项对照方法\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">法益后果\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">有没有公共场所秩序受损害的客观后果，还是仅涉及特定相对方\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">缺乏公共秩序受损后果的，主张不构成犯罪或按治安违法处理\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">情节门槛\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">伤情鉴定、财物损失鉴定与司法解释量化标准是否达到\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">未达门槛的按治安管理处罚处理，见第 1774 号 726 元的教训\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"> \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch1>\u003Cstrong>三、卓安办理的 W 某案：五起指控事实是怎么被逐起核减下来的\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>3.1 案件起点：讨债行为被整体概括成多起滋事，恶势力标签同时压上来\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">W 某被指控寻衅滋事罪并被主张认定为恶势力组织头目，本人有两次寻衅滋事罪前科，若恶势力定性成立，数罪并罚下刑期可能超过十年。辩护目标有两个层次：把指控事实逐起核减，把恶势力标签剥离。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>3.2 第一层：不搞一锅端，把五起事实分开核对\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">讨债类案件的起诉书往往以概括方式叙述，辩护要做的第一件事是把五起事实拆成五张独立的核对单元，每一张上填四栏：在场的都有谁、我方当事人在做什么、对方的陈述是什么、有没有客观材料印证。核对中出现的落差集中在三类：当事人不在场而仅有概括性的同案人供述；指控的是拦截恐吓而实际行为是静坐等待、言语交涉；报警时间距事发过久且无后续处理记录。这些事实在逐起核对后失去支撑。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>3.3 第二层：把滋扰行为还原为有债权基础的催讨\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">第二层的着力点是把行为性质从欺压不特定群众拉回到特定相对方之间的债务主张。承办律师收集合同、结算单、对账单、发票、送货单、验收单，证明每一笔钱都有债权基础；收集催款函、律师函、起诉状、执行申请、调解记录，证明当事人同时或此前已通过合法途径主张权利；再调取现场监控、录音录像与聊天记录，说明催讨过程中没有携带工具、没有实施殴打、停留时间有限。三组材料合起来，指向的是民事纠纷中的不当维权，而不是无事生非。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>3.4 结果：恶势力标签未获认定，最重的从重后果被剥离\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">经长达八小时的庭审辩护，法院最终未认定 W 某为恶势力组织犯罪，避免了从重处罚，数罪并罚判处有期徒刑十一年，其中寻衅滋事罪四年六个月、聚众斗殴罪七年。在被指为恶势力头目的开局下，最致命的标签被剥离，这一结果对同类案件的意义在于：指控事实的数量是可以被逐起核减的，标签是否成立也随之失去了事实基础。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch1>\u003Cstrong>四、律师观点与六个辩点：讨债型寻衅滋事可以从哪六个地方打掉\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>4.1 寻衅滋事罪的四个独立门槛，缺一个就不成立\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">《刑法》第 293 条把寻衅滋事的行为分成四种类型：随意殴打他人；追逐、拦截、辱骂、恐吓他人；强拿硬要或者任意损毁、占用公私财物；在公共场所起哄闹事，造成公共场所秩序严重混乱。前两类要求情节恶劣，第三类要求情节严重，第四类要求造成公共场所秩序严重混乱。这四种情形都只有在破坏社会秩序时才构成犯罪。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ctable style=\"width: auto;\">\u003Ctbody>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">行为类型\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">入罪门槛\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">辩护审查的落脚点\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">随意殴打他人\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">情节恶劣，含致一人以上轻伤或二人以上轻微伤等情形\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">伤情鉴定与量化条目逐项对照\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">追逐、拦截、辱骂、恐吓\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">情节恶劣，含多次实施并造成恶劣社会影响等情形\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">次数、手段、后果是否达到相应条目\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">强拿硬要或任意损毁占用财物\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">情节严重，含二千元以上损失等情形\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">财物损失鉴定与索取范围是否超出债权\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003Ctr>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">公共场所起哄闹事\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">造成公共场所秩序严重混乱\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003Ctd colSpan=\"1\" rowSpan=\"1\" width=\"192\">是否有秩序混乱的客观后果与记录\u003C\u002Ftd>\u003C\u002Ftr>\u003C\u002Ftbody>\u003C\u002Ftable>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"> \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>4.2 辩点一：因债务纠纷引发、对象特定，依法一般不认定为寻衅滋事\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">法释〔2013〕18 号第 1 条第 3 款规定，行为人因婚恋、家庭、邻里、债务等纠纷，实施殴打、辱骂、恐吓他人或者损毁、占用他人财物等行为的，一般不认定为寻衅滋事；除外情形是经有关部门批评制止或者处理处罚后，继续实施前列行为，破坏社会秩序。2019 年两高两部《关于办理实施“软暴力”的刑事案件若干问题的意见》对因合法债务、婚恋、家庭、邻里纠纷等民间矛盾而受雇佣、指使，未造成严重后果的行为，也作了原则上不作犯罪处理的衔接规定。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">这一条对讨债类案件的意义在于，它把这一类行为整体放在一个原则上不入罪的位置上，控方要成立犯罪，必须证明除外情形。辩护要做的是先把“因债务纠纷引发、对象特定、事出有因”三点用客观材料立住，再把举证责任推回去：有没有经过批评制止或者处理处罚，有没有在制止后继续实施。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">第 1374 号案中例外的成立，靠的正是“发生在宾馆、工厂等开放场所并为多人知晓”与“经报警、民警多次要求后仍继续实施”这两点。换成小范围、发生在相对私密场所、收到处理意见后即停止的情形，结论就不同。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>4.3 辩点二：逐起核对行为类型，落不进列举情形的不能计入\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">第 1774 号的裁判理由提出，认定的第一步是把每一笔事实与四种行为类型逐一对照。指控书常常用“滋扰”“闹事”“施压”这类概括词描写行为，而条文要求的是具体的殴打、拦截、辱骂、恐吓、强拿硬要、损毁占用。同一份事实换个说法，性质就变了：在办公室长时间坐着等答复，与追逐、拦截、恐吓不是一回事；在工地门口拉横幅，与强拿硬要或者损毁财物也不是一回事。凡是无法归入任何一类的事实，应当主张不计入。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>4.4 辩点三：没有破坏社会秩序的客观后果，缺的不是情节而是法益\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">本罪保护的法益是社会公共秩序，不是债权人的个人利益，也不是特定相对方的人身财产安全。家属常听到的“对方报警了就是破坏社会秩序”，在法律上不成立。破坏社会秩序需要客观后果：公共场所秩序严重混乱、引发围观聚集、造成交通阻塞、导致经营场所无法正常营业。审查方向是三组材料：有没有群众报案记录、有没有舆情材料、有没有区域治安数据。三者皆无、被害人数少、损失金额小的，应当主张不构成犯罪或者按治安违法行为处理。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>4.5 辩点四：情节门槛要量化对照，未达门槛的只能治安处理\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">殴打类要求致一人以上轻伤或者二人以上轻微伤；财物类要求二千元以上损失或者多次实施等情形；恐吓类要求多次实施并造成恶劣社会影响，或者引起精神失常、自杀等严重后果，或者严重影响他人工作、生活、生产、经营。这些条目是可以逐项对照的，需要把伤情鉴定意见、财物损失鉴定意见、医院病历、监控记录与条目一一比对。第 1774 号案中 726 元的维修费用不符合二千元标准，未达轻微伤的伤情不符合殴打类门槛，这一层对照直接决定了三名被告人无罪。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>4.6 辩点五：“软暴力”的认定有门槛，单次、偶发的过激言语不符合\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">“软暴力”的认定需要同时具备几项特征：以组织的名义或者多人共同实施；具有持续性、反复性；对被害人形成心理强制。单次、个人的过激言语，或者因为情绪激动发生的争执，都不符合这一门槛。审查时需要把每一次具体行为的时间、地点、参与人数、持续时长列出来，凡是孤立发生、人数有限、未形成持续压制的，应当主张从软暴力的评价中剔除。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">卓安律师办理的卢某涉黑案使用的正是这一方法：把同案人关于同一事实的不同表述按卷宗页码逐条列出，形成带页码的矛盾比对表。这种可核验的做法让办案机关无需再行检索即可核对每一处矛盾，显著提高了意见被采纳的可能。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>\u003Cstrong>4.7 辩点六：经批评制止后继续实施才构成例外，反过来说明首次行为不应入罪\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">法释〔2013〕18 号第 1 条第 3 款的除外规定，把“经批评制止或者处理处罚”设定为这类行为构罪的前置条件，把“仍继续实施”设定为必备要件。这两项要件对辩护有两层用处：一层是排除，没有经过批评制止或者处理处罚的事实，以及收到处理意见后即停止的事实，都不应作犯罪评价；另一层是分界，从收到处理意见的时间点切分前后行为，之前的通常按治安违法处理，之后的才可能进入刑事评价。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">卓安律师办理的郑某涉黑案中，寻衅滋事的辩护方法是把三起事实分别质证，以案卷页码定位矛盾，再以矛盾定位不成立。这类案件的共同经验是不要在“是否构成寻衅滋事”这个宏观问题上纠缠，而应当把火力集中在“哪一起事实不成立”这个具体层面。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch1>\u003Cstrong>五、家属现在能做的四件事，以及律师的价值是什么\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">第一件，不要去联系欠款方，也不要请对方出具谅解或者撤案材料。家属最容易想到的办法是说动对方撤案，但在讨债类案件里，这一动作很容易被记录成对被害人的影响，反而为控方补上“破坏社会秩序”这一环。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">第二件，把债权凭证与合法追索的材料找齐，按时间顺序整理。合同、借条、结算单、对账单、送货单、验收单证明债权真实；催款函、律师函、起诉状、执行申请、调解协议证明已经走过合法途径。这两组材料合起来，是适用债务纠纷出罪规则的证据前提，也是讨债类案件里最值钱的一类材料。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">第三件，把每一笔被指控事实的关键细节写下来，按时间、地点、在场人、起因、行为、持续时间六项逐条填。讨债类案件的争点常落在“这一次有没有动手”“是谁先起的争执”“是为了要账还是为了逞强”上，这些细节家属最清楚，等到卷宗固定之后再补就难了。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">第四件，尽早让专业律师介入，在起诉意见书形成之前提交书面意见。寻衅滋事的指控往往是先概括后细化，事实数量一旦写进起诉书，后面的环节都会围绕它补材料。能改变它的窗口在案件前段。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cstrong>律师的价值是什么\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">寻衅滋事罪因为条文覆盖面广，在实务中最容易被扩大适用。同一批催讨行为，评价为民间纠纷中的不当维权还是无事生非的寻衅滋事，结果是一边治安处罚一边十年刑期。律师的价值在于把每一笔指控事实单独拆出来，沿着行为类型、法益后果、情节门槛三条线逐项对照，把不符合列举情形、没有公共秩序受损后果、未达量化门槛的事实逐起剔除，再把恶势力标签从事实基础上剥离。这不是否认当事人上门催讨过，而是主张催讨这件事在法律上的评价被放大了。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-indent: 22pt;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">讨债类案件的辩护，往往要同时处理罪名定性、事实数量与标签剥离三件事，还要把债权、催讨过程、社会影响三组材料调齐。只办刑事的律所，在这类交叉问题上的经验更集中，这是卓安在这类案件中最实在的价值。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch1>\u003Cstrong>六、条文与案例索引\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">· 《刑法》第 13 条、第 293 条；《治安管理处罚法》相关规定；法释〔2013〕18 号《关于办理寻衅滋事刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">· 2019 年两高两部《关于办理实施“软暴力”的刑事案件若干问题的意见》；2019 年四部门《关于办理恶势力刑事案件若干问题的意见》\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">· 《刑事审判参考》总第 124 辑第 1374 号戴颖、蒯军案、总第 152 辑第 1774 号陈某甲案；卓安案例库：W 某涉恶案、郑某涉黑案、卢某涉黑案\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch1>\u003Cstrong>附：卓安在涉黑涉恶犯罪领域的积累与委员会情况\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fh1>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cstrong>办案积累：\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">作为全国第三家只做刑事的律所，卓安成立以来专注刑事辩护与风险防控，累计办理各类刑事案件超 8000 起，其中涉黑涉恶犯罪案件 500 余件，涵盖组织、领导、参加黑社会性质组织罪，以及寻衅滋事、聚众斗殴、敲诈勒索、强迫交易、非法拘禁、开设赌场等关联罪名。涉案人员覆盖组织领导者到普通参与者各层级，已取得不认定黑、不认定恶、不起诉、撤案、改判轻刑、涉案财产解封等辩护效果。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cstrong>专业出版：\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">卓安累计出版法学专著 65 部、发表学术论文 203 篇，围绕公检法运行机制、律师辩护、办案程序与犯罪类型开展专项研究。涉黑涉恶方向编写《涉黑涉恶案件办案实务手册》，发表黑社会性质组织与恶势力犯罪认定研究论文，形成扫黑除恶裁判规则与证据审查指引。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cstrong>培训与课程：\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">卓安面向全国律师、公检法机关、企业、高校开展刑事辩护专题培训 800 余场，覆盖 31 个省、50 余个城市，培训超 12 万人次。涉黑涉恶方向已形成课程体系，包括《黑社会性质组织四个特征认定与辩护》《恶势力犯罪司法认定与排除技巧》《涉黑案件证据审查与非法证据排除》《企业家扫黑风险识别与防控》《反有组织犯罪法理解与适用》。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cstrong>荣誉与行业认可：\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">卓安律师获得各类荣誉表彰 100 余项，多名律师受聘为西北政法大学刑事法律科学研究中心、西南政法大学刑事辩护研究中心、华东政法大学律师学院等高校特邀研究员，并为四川省公安厅、成都市政法委、成都市政府、成都市中级人民法院等 30 余家公检法、律协顾问单位提供咨询顾问服务。艾述洪律师于 2025 年荣任成都律协刑事诉讼专业委员会主任。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cstrong>涉黑涉恶犯罪委员会：\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">四川卓安律师事务所涉黑涉恶犯罪委员会，是卓安在涉黑涉恶方向设立的专业办案与研究机构，由具有原公检法扫黑办案背景的律师、刑事诉讼法学专家与涉黑案件证据专家组成，定位为涉黑涉恶案件的定性纠错与轻刑辩护专业力量。主要职能包括：围绕黑社会性质组织“四个特征”与恶势力认定标准逐项审查证据，排除拔高认定；把当事人从被指控的犯罪组织中剥离，区分组织者、领导者、积极参加者与一般参加者；全面审查“四个特征”证据体系并依法申请非法证据排除；甄别合法财产与涉案财产，为案外人财产、配偶财产和家庭共同财产提出异议；在侦查、审查起诉、审判各阶段提交不认定黑恶的法律意见；编写办案实务手册与培训课程，输出扫黑除恶裁判规则与证据审查指引。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cstrong>核心成员：\u003C\u002Fstrong>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">首席律师成安博士，执业近30年，长期研究涉黑涉恶案件的性质认定与财产辩护；\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">主任何冰冰律师，前市级检察院员额检察官、反贪局侦查科科长；\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">执行主任艾述洪律师，四川省首批刑事专业律师、卓安经济犯罪研究中心主任，擅长责任拆分与财产甄别；\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">副主任魏军律师，原成都市中级人民法院刑二庭副庭长，曾借调最高人民法院参与刑事庭审规程起草。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">委员会以事实和法律为依据开展辩护，不作结果承诺。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">说明：本资料由四川卓安律师事务所涉黑涉恶犯罪委员会出品，面向涉黑涉恶案件中被指控人员的近亲属。《刑事审判参考》案例、最高人民法院指导案例与卓安成功案例用于说明裁判方法与审查思路，个案仍应结合起诉指控、卷宗证据、行为时间及现行法律进行分析。\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: center;\">\u003Cimg src=\"\u002Ffile:\u002F\u002F\u002FC:\\WINDOWS\\TEMP\\ksohtml7952\\wps53.png\" alt=\"\" data-href=\"\" style=\"\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\"> \u003C\u002Fspan>\u003Cimg src=\"http:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F09\u002F18\u002F0b921fd8-caa3-4afb-a99a-8e4085f79853.png\" alt=\"\" data-href=\"\" style=\"\">\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">卓安律师事务所官网http:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002F\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp style=\"text-align: left;\">\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: 宋体;\">24小时刑事急救专线:17381975473、4000-148-149\u003C\u002Fspan>\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>\u003Cbr>\u003C\u002Fp>","2026-09-18 11:08:23",{"id":43,"createdAt":27,"updatedAt":27,"deleted":31,"code":414,"name":415,"icon":416,"sort":43,"status":6,"seoTitle":10,"seoDescription":10,"seoKeywords":10},"professional","罪名分类","\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F07\u002F14\u002F8cfc49d7-c529-46c5-a6f1-d03a37047b2b.png",{"title":418,"description":407,"keywords":408,"canonical":419,"image":410,"jsonLd":420},"家人替公司上门讨债被定寻衅滋事罪，哪些情形其实不构成犯罪？ - 罪名分类 | 四川卓安律师事务所","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fnews\u002Fprofessional\u002F537",[421],{"@context":361,"@graph":422},[423,430],{"@type":424,"@id":419,"url":419,"headline":409,"description":407,"datePublished":425,"dateModified":426,"author":427,"publisher":428,"articleSection":415,"inLanguage":366,"image":429},"Article","2026-09-18T11:08:23+08:00","2026-09-18T11:08:30+08:00",{"@id":368},{"@id":368},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fuploads\u002F2026\u002F09\u002F18\u002F95a036ad-8659-447f-942e-ccacbc799f90.jpg",{"@type":431,"itemListElement":432},"BreadcrumbList",[433,436,438],{"@type":434,"position":6,"name":435,"item":358},"ListItem","首页",{"@type":434,"position":38,"name":415,"item":437},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.zhuoanlaw.com\u002Fnews\u002Fprofessional",{"@type":434,"position":35,"name":409,"item":419}]