After a man met and had a relationship with a netizen, the police punished him with soliciting prostitution. The man refused and took him to court. What was the verdict?

Liu, a 29-year-old man, works on the Internet and likes to surf the Internet. After Liu met the woman Chen online, he and Chen became WeChat friends privately. Afterwards, Liu helped Chen book a ticket, and Chen took the high-speed rail from Hunan to Shaoguan to meet Liu. When the two had sex in a hotel, they were caught on the spot by the police.

After Liu was caught by the police, he argued that he was not soliciting prostitution because no agreement was reached and there was no monetary transaction. However, the police did not accept Liu's reasons. Subsequently, the police made an administrative penalty decision to detain Liu for 15 days and fine him 5,000 yuan. After the incident, Liu was dissatisfied and filed for administrative reconsideration but failed. Chen went to court and requested the court to revoke the penalty decision. The reason why Liu was prosecuted

In administrative litigation, the punishing unit bears the burden of proof for the legality of the administrative action and should provide evidence of the administrative action and the normative documents on which it is based. In other words, the punishment unit in this case needs to have sufficient evidence to prove that Liu is soliciting prostitution, and the punishment is legal.

In court, the punishment unit provided the following evidence and legal basis:

1. When the police arrested Liu, Liu was having a relationship with Chen, and the two were not in love. relation. The above shows that Liu has violated the law.

2. According to the chat records between the two, Liu brushed gifts for Chen in the live broadcast room, and Chen agreed to meet with him. At this time, the two had reached an agreement on prostitution. Liu paid money to give Chen a gift, which was actually a way of paying for prostitution.

3. The police believe that according to the judicial interpretation, if the perpetrators have reached an intention to engage in prostitution, paid money, and started to implement it, they should be punished in accordance with the law.

Article 66 of the "Public Security Management Punishment Law" stipulates: Those who engage in prostitution or whoring shall be detained for 10-15 days and may also be fined not more than 5,000 yuan; if the circumstances are relatively minor, they shall be detained for not more than 5 days. Or a single fine of not more than 500 yuan may be imposed.

From this point of view, there seems to be no problem with the punishment unit's decision to punish Liu. Liu and Chen are not in a romantic relationship, and they also paid money (for gifts). Isn't this just prostitution? However, the court will not listen to just one side of the argument before making a decision. Liu then defended himself:

Firstly, he did not negotiate with Chen about prostitution or buying gifts, just to get Chen to agree to meet him. The two were not in a prostitution relationship. Second, before the two had a relationship, they did not pay any additional money to Chen. Third, the relationship between two people is the result of mutual affection between a man and a woman, and it is not illegal. How did the court decide?

Judging from Liu’s defense, the biggest problem in this case is that Liu bought gifts just for the purpose of meeting, and there was no agreement on the price or agreement on prostitution. According to Article 54 of the Administrative Litigation Law, if the facts of an administrative penalty decision are unclear and the main evidence is insufficient, the court shall make a judgment to revoke the penalty decision in accordance with the law.

In the end, the court held that the defendant’s decision to punish Liu was based on unclear facts and insufficient evidence. It was decided to revoke the defendant’s decision to punish Liu. The case acceptance fee of 50 yuan shall be borne by the defendant.