Part Two: Chivalrous Lawyer: Legal Rescue of the "Sea Palace"

7. First Courtroom Confrontation

At 9:30 a.m. on June 21, 2011, the Administrative Division of the Longgang District People's Court held its first hearing in the case of Hai Shang Jing Ying Entertainment Company suing the Shenzhen Longgang District Economic Promotion Bureau for illegal administrative actions. When lawyer Wang Tengfeng and his team arrived at the court on time, reporters who had heard the news had already packed the administrative courtroom, which could only accommodate about twenty people. The lawyer representing the defendant was Wu Wenhui, a former judge of ten years who had switched to practicing law. Wang Tengfeng had met him a few times before, but at that time, Wang was a practicing lawyer while the other was a judge handling civil and commercial cases at the Shenzhen Futian District People's Court. Lawyer Wu Wenhui holds a doctorate in civil and commercial law from Wuhan University. Before 2003, he had worked on civil and commercial cases at the Huizhou Intermediate People's Court in Guangdong Province and the Shenzhen Futian District People's Court. After transitioning to law practice, he has built a considerable reputation and influence. In handling litigation cases, aside from his solid legal foundation, his greatest strength is his ability to empathize with judges, making it easy to sway the presiding judge and ultimately secure victory.

Facing so many media reporters in the gallery and a formidable opponent on the defendant's side, Wang Tengfeng appeared calm and composed. With thorough pre-trial preparation, he was naturally confident in court. Moreover, lawyer Wang Tengfeng has always been highly confident in his debating skills and adaptability. The more substantial the opponent, the more it ignites his fighting spirit and passion, allowing him to showcase his often-praised courtroom debating artistry.

As the plaintiff's lawyer, Wang Tengfeng spoke first. Based on careful preparation and following the basic principles of administrative litigation, he targeted the defendant's response from the outset, directly attacking the core of the administrative litigation defendant: the defendant's revocation of the "Approval for Applications for Marine Aquaculture, Fishing, etc." and the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate," as well as the forced demolition of the "Sea Palace," were all illegal administrative actions violating legal procedures. Although the defendant mistakenly treated the acquisition of a sea area use right certificate as a prerequisite for obtaining an aquaculture registration certificate, exaggerated the luxury fishing raft as a "Sea Palace" and falsely labeled it as an "illegal structure," and argued that revoking the earlier approval of the plaintiff's application and the issued aquaculture registration certificate was a self-correction rather than an illegal administrative act, and claimed the forced demolition was a "lawful restoration of old punitive measures" rather than admitting to "illegally implementing new punitive measures," none of this could remedy the legality issues of the defendant's specific administrative actions!

The defendant's lawyer, on the other hand, focused on the legality of the "Sea Palace" itself, putting up a fierce resistance. However, the focus of administrative litigation is the legality of the challenged administrative action—whether it has a legal basis and whether it follows legal procedures. Therefore, even if the defendant's counterarguments sound "somewhat reasonable," they hold no legal significance if they cannot remedy the legality issues of their own administrative actions.

Let us now refer to the report on the court trial written by Zhou Weihan, a journalist from Southern Metropolis Daily, to review the proceedings of that day's hearing. Although the journalist is not a legal expert, and the report inevitably bears the limitation of "laymen watching the excitement," and the journalist's superficial understanding of relevant legal issues and courtroom techniques prevents a deep reproduction of the subtleties and highlights of the trial, we can still roughly discern the offensive and defensive dynamics between the two sides in court. In particular, the judge's questions to both parties during the court investigation clearly indicate that the judge has fully acknowledged the key point raised by lawyer Wang Tengfeng—the legality of the administrative act being sued. The judge's inquiries merely served to further verify the details of the defendant's illegal administrative actions. To compensate for the lack of thoroughness and vividness in the journalist's report, the editor has added some supplementary notes in parentheses.

The case of the "Sea Palace" angrily suing the Longgang District Economic Promotion Bureau, after repeated delays, finally went to trial yesterday.

The fame of the "Sea Palace" rapidly elevated Guo Moumou's reputation. Hearing that Guo would attend the trial, the court session was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Since there were only 18 seats for observers, only 4 were allocated for journalists. Around 7:30 a.m., media reporters were already crowding at the entrance of the Longgang District People's Court, "scrambling" for admission tickets.

Around 9 a.m., after passing security checks, journalists from over ten media outlets at the national, provincial, and municipal levels successively arrived at the Fourth Trial Court of the court. Although neither party in the case was present at the scene, all observer seats were already filled by media reporters.

Subsequently, a relevant official from the Longgang Court arrived at the scene to explain that arranging a trial court with only 18 seats was not intentional obstruction; in fact, the court only had this one administrative trial court, and there was no way to rearrange the venue.

The official stated that, for the sake of fairness, only one media outlet from each level—national, provincial, municipal, and district—could be selected for observation, on a first-come, first-served basis. A Southern Metropolis Daily reporter noted that some media outlets that had rushed to occupy the journalist seats did not follow this rule, while other media outlets that did not obtain observation qualifications remained stubbornly at the entrance of the trial court, unwilling to leave.

After negotiations, the court decided to bring in stools to allow all media reporters to attend the hearing, but they must abide by court rules and cannot take photos or record videos.

A Southern Metropolis Daily reporter found that the public seating area, about 10 square meters, was packed with nearly 40 people. To get firsthand interview information, many media personnel shared stools, with two people squeezing onto one stool.

Two demands

At 9:20 a.m., Guo, the owner of the "Sea Palace," arrived at the Fourth Trial Court of Longgang Court accompanied by four or five assistants. He was still wearing an open Tang suit, looking relaxed. (In reality, behind Guo's seemingly relaxed demeanor, it was hard to conceal his nervousness, anxiety, and anticipation due to the uncertainty of the trial outcome! — Editor's note.)

This time, Guo angrily sued the Economic Promotion Bureau, bringing two demands with him.

Guo hoped that the Longgang Economic Promotion Bureau would revoke the "Notice on Revoking the 'Approval for Marine Aquaculture and Fishing Applications'" issued by the former Longgang Oceanic Bureau on March 1, 2001 (as well as the "Decision on Revoking the 'Aquaculture Registration Certificate,'" which the reporter omitted — Editor's note). As a result, Guo was unable to operate leisure fishery projects. He was very angry about the Oceanic Bureau's inconsistent behavior.

Guo Moumou's second demand was for the court to rule that the Longgang Oceanic Bureau's demolition of the "Sea Palace" was illegal. Guo Moumou no longer cared about money. In an exclusive interview with a Nandu reporter, he said that as long as the public knew about this matter, "compensation or not doesn't matter."

Banned from speaking

Upon entering the courtroom, Guo's assistant asked some reporters to give up their seats, but Guo Moumou stopped him. "Let more media pay attention to this matter, don't stop them," Guo Moumou whispered to his assistant. Then, Guo sat next to his attorney Wang Tengfeng.

Unfortunately, the management company of the "Sea Palace" was Shenzhen Sea Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. Although this company was a subsidiary of the fashion group led by Guo Moumou, its legal representative was a stranger named Guo Jingli. Thus, Guo Moumou was informed that he had no right to speak during the trial. (Originally, Guo Moumou was supposed to sit in the public gallery, but to give his seat to a reporter, he sat next to attorney Wang Tengfeng in the plaintiff's seat. However, he was neither the legal representative of the plaintiff, Shenzhen Sea Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd., nor had he gone through the procedures for entrustment in advance, so he did not have the status of the plaintiff company's entrusted agent, hence he was "silenced"—editor's note)

The trial lasted over three hours, during which Guo Moumou either smiled or looked down at documents, but remained silent.

Sitting diagonally across from Guo Moumou were Wang Airan, former head of the Oceanic Bureau's Marine and Fisheries Section, and Dai Yuru, captain of the Longgang Fishery Administration and Maritime Surveillance Brigade. Jia Changsheng, the legal representative of the Longgang District Economic Promotion Bureau, was not present.

[1] Tit for tat

[2] In this court session, Guo's side was no longer acting alone. The Longgang Economic Promotion Bureau changed its previous silence, and the lawyers on both sides engaged in a tit-for-tat battle over whether to demolish or preserve the "Sea Palace," and whether to revoke the aquaculture registration certificate and recreational fishing permit.

[3] Economic Promotion Bureau: According to the "Interim Regulations on Longgang Sea Fishing Management Rafts," a fishing raft must not exceed 5,000 square meters, with the management area not exceeding 20%, and must be uniformly painted blue. The "Sea Palace" completely fails to meet these requirements.

[4] Lawyer Wang Tengfeng: This regulation has already expired.

[5] Economic Promotion Bureau: The Sea Palace does not resemble a tool for making a living; it is more like a private club.

[6] Lawyer Wang Tengfeng: Thirty years ago, we went to bathhouses to bathe; now we go to spas. Thirty years ago, we went to barbershops for a haircut; now we go to salons for services. Similarly, can't aquaculture and fishing have a beautiful, sheltered place? The key is what you are essentially doing. (This was Lawyer Wang Tengfeng's most brilliant performance in the court debate. Unfortunately, the reporter's account was too simplistic, lacking in conveying the full meaning and even more so in capturing the spirit. Lawyer Wang Tengfeng's impromptu remarks in court were: "Thirty years ago, people bathed in bathhouses with a pair of slippers, a pool of murky water, a towel, and a bar of soap—wash and rinse, and it was done. Thirty years later, people bathe in water clubs, soaking in medicinal or flower baths while enjoying food, movies, TV, music, plus saunas and massages. Thirty years ago, people got haircuts at barbershops with a basin of clean water, a razor, a bar of soap, and a towel—shave and dry, and it was done. Thirty years later, people go to salons for haircuts, listening to music, enjoying massages, and getting beauty treatments and makeup. Are people going to salons and water clubs today not for haircuts and baths? Their core functions remain unchanged—still haircuts, still baths! By analogy, why is a simple fishing raft still a fishing raft, while a creatively built luxurious fishing raft—the 'Sea Palace'—is not a fishing raft? It is merely luxurious, but it still retains the basic function of a fishing raft for aquaculture and recreational fishing! The misconception that simplicity is legal and luxury is illegal clearly stems from a national flaw—envy, jealousy, and hatred. But the defendant, as a government functional department, should not be swayed by public opinion into losing its footing and acting unlawfully. The 'Sea Palace' should not become a victim of the blind masses!")

Lawyer Wang Tengfeng: The "Sea Palace" was completely renovated in accordance with the original requirements of the Oceanic Administration, passed inspection, and obtained an aquaculture registration certificate, among other approvals.

Economic Promotion Bureau: The on-site video recorded by law enforcement officers on February 17 this year can prove that this illegal structure is not genuinely used for sea fishing. The interior shows the post-renovation condition—has there been any change compared to before the renovation?

Economic Promotion Bureau: The racetrack did not use materials intended for aquaculture buildings.

Lawyer Wang Tengfeng: The horses at the racetrack have been dispersed. For the above-ground renovation, there must be places for sitting, standing, and resting. These luxurious facilities were previously permitted by the defendant. The demolished part of the atrium does not even contain aquaculture facilities.

The judge pressed further.

Longgang Economic Promotion Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Economic Promotion Bureau):

[1] The initial issuance of the certificate was erroneous.

[2] Judge: The "Sea Palace" side once requested permission for renovations, and the Oceanic Administration agreed in its reply on July 15, 2010. What is the main basis for this? What considerations were taken?

[3] Economic Promotion Bureau replied: First, to avoid wasting social wealth; second, the other party claimed they could obtain a sea area use permit after renovations, but they actually did not.

[4] Judge: Was there a clear official document informing the "Sea Palace" that it needed to obtain a sea area use permit after rectification?

[5] Economic Promotion Bureau replied: It was roughly communicated, without a clear document, just a general mention. This is common knowledge, especially since the plaintiff has dealt with the marine authorities for years and should have known.

[6] Judge: After approving the "Sea Palace" application for a breeding registration permit and a recreational fishing permit, was there an on-site inspection? Was an in-depth study conducted on the existence of the "Sea Palace"?

The Economic Promotion Bureau replied: No, we issued the certificates by mistake. Later, we went to inspect that sea area. Apart from being split into three parts, the sea area had only changed its location, with no change in appearance.

Judge: Did you conduct on-site inspections before issuing the aquaculture registration certificates? What functions do these certificates themselves have?

The Economic Promotion Bureau replied: Based on inference, an on-site inspection should have been conducted. Issuing these certificates was itself a mistake, so they cannot be used for lawful activities. This was merely a record of the registration management situation at the time by the issuing authority, and the issuance was based on a mistaken legal understanding. According to the law, aquaculture certificates must be issued by the people's government at or above the county level, and the marine department does not have this qualification.

Judge: Was the demolition of the "Sea Palace" because it did not meet the conditions for recreational fishing?

The Economic Promotion Bureau replied: The plaintiff had not obtained a sea area use certificate; moreover, the "Sea Palace" was not actually used for aquaculture production or fishing, nor for certain people's health preservation. Let us think with common sense: is this really used for aquaculture? It looks more like a club.

Judge: Was the revocation of the aquaculture registration certificate notified to the "Sea Palace" side?

The Economic Promotion Bureau replied: This act is a non-administrative licensing administrative approval act, and there is no legal provision requiring notification for such an act.

Judge: Suddenly agreeing to the renovation of the Sea Palace, then suddenly revoking its aquaculture registration certificate, but how should the substantial funds invested by the plaintiff during this process be handled?

The Economic Promotion Bureau replied: This is not within the scope of this case's trial and can be tried in a separate case.

Wang Tengfeng, attorney for Sea Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Attorney Wang Tengfeng):

Renovation for effective utilization

Judge: On October 14, 2008, a fine of RMB 497,700 was imposed for illegal occupation of sea areas, and the Longgang Court ruled for compulsory enforcement. Has the enforcement been concluded?

Lawyer Wang Tengfeng: Already executed.

Judge: After the enforcement was concluded, the sea area was still occupied. Why did you later consider renovating the structures involved?

Lawyer Wang Tengfeng: This complex cost nearly 100 million yuan and represents social wealth. Out of consideration for preserving assets, we thought about effective utilization. Moreover, after the penalty, the "Sea Palace" was not floating in its original location.

Judge: After relocating for renovation and utilization, did you consider applying for a sea area use permit?

Lawyer Wang Tengfeng: In the Dongshan sea area, over 200-300 aquaculture registration certificates, fishing permits, and passage permits have been issued. Which of these operators actually operates based on the premise of having a sea area use certificate?

At the conclusion of the court debate, focusing on the disputed issues in the trial, especially the main defense arguments raised by the defendant's representative during the court investigation and debate phases, Lawyer Wang Tengfeng reorganized the facts and arguments presented by his side, reiterating and emphasizing seven aspects to the court. This is actually an important aspect of Lawyer Wang Tengfeng's litigation art: during the trial, he often delivers exceptional and beyond-scope performances based on the offensive and defensive dynamics, but must maintain proper balance and control, ultimately grounding everything in the most critical and fundamental facts and legal issues of the case. In other words, the trial must be both "impressive" and yield good results.

1. Regarding the basic facts of this case, the plaintiff lawfully obtained the "Approval for Applying for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture, Fishing, etc." and subsequently received the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" based on it. The legitimate rights and interests in operating recreational fisheries thus acquired should be protected. The defendant's revocation of the said "Approval" and "Registration Certificate" has severely damaged the plaintiff's lawful rights and interests. Specifically, on February 13, 2009, the Shenzhen Longgang District Oceanic Administration issued an "Administrative Penalty Decision" to the plaintiff and later applied to the Longgang District Court for compulsory enforcement. On November 20, 2009, the Longgang District Court issued an "Administrative Enforcement Ruling," granting compulsory enforcement of the "Administrative Penalty Decision." After negotiations with the Longgang District Oceanic Administration and the enforcement court, the plaintiff dismantled the marine structures into three parts and removed them from the original sea area. On July 15, 2010, the Longgang District Oceanic Administration issued to the plaintiff the "Approval for the Application of Marine Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. to Modify the Dismantled Marine Structures," agreeing that the plaintiff could lawfully operate recreational fishery projects on the aforementioned marine structures after obtaining the aquaculture registration certificate. On December 22, 2010, the defendant issued to the plaintiff the "Approval for Applying for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture, Fishing, etc." On December 25, 2010, the defendant issued the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" to the plaintiff, thereby granting the plaintiff the qualification to operate recreational fishery projects on the aforementioned marine structures.

2. The plaintiff strictly carried out rectifications in accordance with the submitted materials and the approval, and there was no issue of incomplete rectification. On June 29, 2010, the plaintiff submitted to the Shenzhen Longgang District Oceanic Administration the "Request for Subsequent Modification of the Dismantled Original Marine Palace Structures," specifying the rectification methods, including adding guardrails, keeping the main structure of the atrium unchanged, and adding net cages, and subsequently carried out rectifications strictly according to these methods. On July 15, 2010, the former Shenzhen Longgang District Oceanic Administration issued to the plaintiff the "Approval for the Application of Marine Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. to Modify the Dismantled Marine Structures," approving the plaintiff's rectification plan. Later, after acceptance inspection, the Longgang District Oceanic Administration and the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau issued the approval and registration certificate involved in this case to the plaintiff, which sufficiently demonstrates that the plaintiff's rectification met the requirements of the former Longgang District Oceanic Administration and the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau, and there was no issue of incomplete rectification.

3. Regarding the issue of the right to use the sea area, the Shenzhen Longgang District Oceanic Administration issued to the plaintiff the "Approval for the Application of Marine Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. to Modify the Dismantled Marine Structures." As the authority for sea area use management, it explicitly allowed the plaintiff to modify and operate at the designated location, effectively granting the plaintiff the legal permission to use the sea area. The actual situation of this case is that there is a large sea area use right certificate for the relevant sea area, meaning the sea area use right for the involved sea area is held by the Longgang District Oceanic Administration and the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau. These two authorities, through the approval, permitted the plaintiff to use the sea area at the involved location. Therefore, there is no issue of illegal occupation of the sea area. As can also be seen from the second item of the Longgang District Oceanic Administration's approval, the plaintiff only needs to pay the sea area use fee and does not need to apply for a formal "Sea Area Use Right Certificate," which is actually impossible to apply for. Thus, the sea area use right for the involved sea area is already held by the Longgang District Oceanic Administration and the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Bureau.

4. Regarding the defendant's claim that the basis for the fishing raft is the "Interim Provisions on the Management of Marine Fishing Rafts in Longgang District," which in turn is based on the "Trial Measures for the Management of Recreational Fisheries in Guangdong Province," and that the trial measures became invalid on March 14, 2010, thus the approval should be revoked, this argument is logically untenable. Because: (1) According to the "Guangdong Province Administrative Approval Management and Supervision Measures," when laws and regulations become invalid, it can only result in the administrative authority no longer being able to forcibly conduct approvals for matters covered by those laws and regulations (i.e., no approval is required), and cannot lead to the automatic consequence that approved decisions should be revoked; (2) The Administrative License Law also clearly stipulates that if the laws, regulations, or rules on which a license is based are amended or abolished, the administrative authority may only change or withdraw the license if it is necessary for the public interest. This also makes it clear that when the basis is amended or abolished, the administrative authority cannot automatically revoke the license; (3) The approval explicitly states that matters related to fishing require a separate application, so whether the "Interim Provisions on the Management of Marine Fishing Rafts in Longgang District" is invalid or not does not affect the validity of the approval; (4) The approval involves two matters: aquaculture and fishing. Even if the defendant's claim about the invalidity of the rules is valid, it only concerns the fishing matter and is unrelated to the aquaculture matter. At most, it would be a matter of amending the approval, not revoking it.

5. There is no issue of lacking authority to issue aquaculture registration certificates. Current regulations stipulate that aquaculture registration certificates are issued by people's governments at or above the county level, not by county-level people's governments. The actual procedure is that applicants submit applications to the fishery department, which then forwards them to the same-level government for approval, after which the fishery department issues the certificate to the applicant.

6. The defendant's revocation or withdrawal of the "Reply on Applications for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture, Fishing, etc." and the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" deprived the plaintiff of the rights to make statements, present defenses, and seek reconsideration. According to Article 7 of the Administrative Licensing Law, the revocation or withdrawal of these documents should have granted the plaintiff the rights to make statements, present defenses, and seek reconsideration. However, the defendant did not inform the plaintiff of these rights when revoking the above documents, effectively depriving the plaintiff of these rights, constituting a serious procedural issue.

7. The defendant's revocation of the "Reply on Applications for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture, Fishing, etc." and the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" essentially constitutes an administrative penalty under Article 8, Item (5) of the Administrative Penalty Law, which stipulates "suspension or revocation of permits, suspension or revocation of licenses." This should have granted the plaintiff the rights to make statements, defenses, and appeals in accordance with the Administrative Penalty Law, but in reality, these rights of the plaintiff were not protected.

Based on the above seven points, when the defendant made the administrative penalty decision to revoke the "Reply on Applications for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture, Fishing, etc." and the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate" against the plaintiff, it failed to follow legal procedures and did not grant the plaintiff the rights to make statements, defenses, and appeals. This should be deemed a procedural violation and the decision should be revoked.

According to the schedule indicated in the court's previous "Summons," the court consolidated the three administrative litigation cases filed by Marine Elite Entertainment Co., Ltd. for joint hearing, which were divided into two parts. Today's hearing first addressed the legality of the defendant's notification and decision to revoke the "Reply on Applications for Certificates for Marine Aquaculture, Fishing, etc." and the "Aquaculture Registration Certificate," i.e., Cases No. 45 and No. 53. The hearing lasted over three hours, and around 12:40 PM, the presiding judge announced an adjournment, scheduling the next hearing for June 24 at 2:30 PM to address the issue of the forced demolition of the "Sea Palace" (i.e., Case No. 47).

As soon as the judge announced the adjournment, Guo, who had been suppressing his emotions for a long time, couldn't help but stand up excitedly, repeatedly saying, "Great! Great!" Indeed, lawyer Wang Tengfeng's outstanding performance in court achieved excellent trial results. Particularly notable was his rebuttal to the defendant's view that the overly luxurious "Sea Palace" was not a fish raft: "As everyone knows, thirty years ago, people went to barbershops for haircuts; today, people go to high-end hair salons, enjoying music, massages, and hair washing services while getting haircuts. Thirty years ago, people went to bathhouses to bathe; today, people go to spa clubs for dining, entertainment, and star-level services. Thirty years ago, farmers planted rice by hand; today, farmers use electronically controlled mechanized farming in modern farms." This was a stroke of genius in the courtroom debate! Not only did it use analogy to clear the clouds and reveal the essence of the "Sea Palace," which had been obscured by media hype and public outcry, but it was also vivid and thoroughly reasoned. Everyone present in the courtroom and audience was invigorated, suddenly understanding what the "Sea Palace" was all about! Coupled with lawyer Wang Tengfeng's subsequent forceful and righteous debate on the enlightening significance and follow-up handling of the "Sea Palace" case, it provided strong legal and moral support for the continued existence of the "Sea Palace," and also won over many journalists and the blindly following public who had previously harbored hostility toward it, largely reversing the unfavorable public opinion.

Lawyer Wang Tengfeng presented well-reasoned and irrefutable arguments in court, engaging in a sharp and brilliant debate with the defendant's government attorney. Not only did he earn heartfelt applause from all listeners, but even the court police and security guards maintaining order that day chased after lawyer Wang Tengfeng for his business card after the adjournment. The next day, when Guo's secretary, Zhang Guangbin, went to the Longgang District People's Court to submit written materials, the presiding judge from the previous day's hearing privately praised him, saying, "Where did you find this lawyer? He's amazing!" Major media outlets provided detailed coverage of the trial, and lawyer Wang Tengfeng later organized and published his formal written representation (fully recorded earlier). The public and ordinary readers praised it as brilliant after reading! Many fellow lawyers also couldn't help but admire it, wondering if representation could be written like this! It is no exaggeration to say that the courtroom debate in this case, especially lawyer Wang Tengfeng's outstanding performance, had a broad and profound impact across society. Some prominent figures in the legal field called lawyer Wang Tengfeng a genius. Even the leaders of the Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Justice, the direct supervisory authority of the Shenzhen legal profession, later relayed high-level officials' words to lawyer Wang Tengfeng, saying, "We heard you're quite formidable in litigation?!"

Figure 83: Scene of the courtroom during the first hearing.

Figure 84: This is a handwritten "trial record" left by lawyer Wang Tengfeng during the first court session according to his work habits, from which one can glimpse his superb skills and professionalism in adapting and performing during the trial.

Figure 85: After the first court session ended, Guo Moumou, Wang Tengfeng, and others stood up and left the courtroom.

　Figure 86: This shows lawyer Wang Tengfeng being interviewed by a reporter from Guangdong TV station, responding to the defendant's claim that "self-correction can revoke (the approval and aquaculture registration certificate)." Lawyer Wang Tengfeng told the reporter, "He (referring to the defendant) said he was self-correcting, but correction must also go through legal procedures. He didn't do that, and on a whim, he issued six orders to revoke it!"

　　The June 22, 2011 issue of "Shenzhen Commercial Daily" on page A13 also provided a relatively detailed and comprehensive account of the first court session (Figure 87).

Figure 87: The June 22, 2011 issue of "Shenzhen Commercial Daily" on page A13.

　　(待续)