Compiled from: The Beijing News, The Paper
 
On July 15, 2020, the trial of a suspected poisoning case involving a kindergarten teacher in Jiaozuo, Henan, opened at the Jiaozuo Intermediate People's Court. Teacher Wang Yun was charged with endangering public safety and intentional injury. After a three-and-a-half-hour trial, the presiding judge announced an adjournment, with sentencing to be announced at a later date.

 
 

Case Summary
1.Poisoned students' meal bowls in retaliation after a conflict with a colleague
On the morning of March 27, 2019, a suspected child food poisoning incident occurred at Mengmeng Kindergarten in Jiefang District, Jiaozuo. According to police reports, the incident was caused by teacher Wang Yun adding sodium nitrite to the food. The incident resulted in 23 children being poisoned.
 
During the trial, Wang Yun stated that on March 26, 2019, she had a conflict with middle-class teacher Sun Zhenzhen. Sun reported her to the principal, and after learning this, Wang became dissatisfied with Sun and decided to retaliate by adding sodium nitrite to the middle-class students' eight-treasure porridge. Wang said that after the conflict with Sun, she "got angrier the more she thought about it" and wanted to make Sun "feel bad for a couple of days," so she considered poisoning, because "sometimes Sun would also taste the food." She claimed she was "targeting Sun," and the poisoned meal bowl contained food for the kindergarten's middle-class students, but she "didn't consider the children at the time." She said that after the children showed symptoms, she was called to the second floor, where she helped pat their backs and give them water, and later followed the kindergarten operator to take four children to the hospital.
 
In his final statement, Wang Yun wept in court, apologized, and confessed, saying he would never forgive himself for the rest of his life. However, he argued that he "did not intentionally mean to harm the children" and "did not think about what would happen if the children ate it."
 
On January 28, 2020, one of the poisoned children died, and the autopsy determined it was caused by sodium nitrite poisoning.
 
2.He had previously poisoned his husband due to life conflicts, causing minor injuries that led to hospitalization.
Additionally, according to the prosecution's charges, as early as February 19, 2017, Wang Yun put sodium nitrite purchased online into her husband Feng's water cup, causing him to be hospitalized for poisoning. Later, it was determined that Feng's injuries were minor. Wang Yun confessed that she went to work after poisoning him, then received a call from her mother, rushed to the hospital, and saw her husband lying weak on the hospital bed. Her mother's testimony stated that when she discovered him, Feng was unconscious in bed, with purple lips and foaming at the mouth. The prosecutor noted that at the time, doctors suspected sodium nitrite poisoning and recommended further testing, but the family did not agree.
 
Initially, Wang Yun confessed that she poisoned her husband because of marital discord, as he had a bad temper and often caused trouble after drinking, so she wanted to teach him a lesson. She bought sodium nitrite after accidentally learning about it online and "just bought some." In later confessions and during the trial, Wang Yun claimed she bought sodium nitrite to cook meat for her father, as it could make the meat more tender. She also said she used it once when eating a hotpot of ribs with her son. During the trial, Wang Yun said that after that hotpot, she felt dizzy and had diarrhea.
 
The prosecutor pointed out in court that Wang Yun was changing her testimony. She bought the sodium nitrite on February 17, 2017, and poisoned her husband just two days later. Her father's testimony also showed that the family had never used sodium nitrite. Furthermore, Wang Yun's earlier confession stated that while searching online for "what can be taken with cephalosporins to cause poisoning," she accidentally learned about the effects of sodium nitrite: small doses can cause dizziness, vomiting, and diarrhea, while larger doses can lead to death.
 
3.[1] The prosecuting authority recommended a heavier punishment for him.
[2] The prosecuting authority believed that Wang Yun's actions had violated relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and should be held criminally liable for the crime of endangering public safety with dangerous substances and the crime of intentional injury. The prosecuting authority emphasized that Wang Yun's crime was a malignant offense, with particularly despicable means, especially severe consequences, and extremely adverse social impact, and recommended severe punishment; Wang Yun committed multiple crimes and should be punished for all of them.
 
4.[3] Parents of the victimized children: Demanded severe criminal punishment and filed incidental civil lawsuits.
[4] Parents of the victimized children stated that Wang Yun confessed guilt and read a statement of repentance in court, "Wang Yun said he hoped to be forgiven by the parents." During the trial, the families of the victimized children filed incidental civil lawsuits, demanding severe criminal punishment for Wang Yun and joint liability compensation from the kindergarten. In addition to medical expenses and nutrition fees, most parents also demanded 50,000 yuan in mental damages from the defendant.
 
[5] Previously, the mother of the deceased child, Ms. Zhang, said that the civil compensation lawsuit filed by her family would not be heard this time and would be tried separately later. Since the incident, they had not received any apology from the defendant Wang Yun, his family, or the kindergarten. The over 1 million yuan in medical expenses for rescuing the child was also advanced by the local government on behalf of the defendant Wang Yun and the kindergarten.
 
5.[6] The court rejected Wang Yun's application for a judicial psychiatric evaluation.
The judge stated that during the pre-trial meeting on July 10, Wang Yun's defense counsel argued that Wang Yun had a withdrawn personality and was not good at communicating, applying for a judicial psychiatric evaluation. In response, the prosecution pointed out that Wang Yun's speech was normal, his emotional responses showed no abnormalities, he had a sense of self-preservation due to fear of punishment, and neither he nor his family had a history of mental illness. At the time of the crime, he had full criminal responsibility, so a judicial psychiatric evaluation was unnecessary. Ultimately, the court rejected the application for a judicial psychiatric evaluation for Wang Yun.

 

 
Relevant legal provisions
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China" 
Article 115: Crimes of arson, breaching dikes, causing explosions, disseminating dangerous substances, and endangering public security by dangerous means
Whoever commits arson, breaches dikes, causes explosions, disseminates toxic, radioactive, or infectious disease pathogens, or uses other dangerous means to cause serious injury or death, or cause major losses to public or private property, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment, or death. Whoever negligently commits the crime in the preceding paragraph shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; if the circumstances are minor, to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention.
 
Article 232: Crime of intentional homicide
Whoever intentionally commits homicide shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years; if the circumstances are minor, to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years.
 
 
The distinction between the crime of disseminating dangerous substances and the crime of intentional homicide
1. [1] Differences in the subjective aspect.
[2] The intent in the crime of endangering public safety by releasing hazardous substances refers to the perpetrator's psychological state of knowing that their act of poisoning will cause damage to public safety, and hoping for or allowing such a result to occur; the intent in the crime of intentional homicide refers to the perpetrator's psychological state of knowing that their act will cause the death of another person, and hoping for or allowing such a result to occur. The difference in the cognitive factor is whether the perpetrator recognizes that their act will cause damage to public safety or the end of another person's life; in the volitional factor, both the crime of releasing hazardous substances and the crime of homicide can manifest as hoping for or allowing, with the difference lying in the specific result hoped for or allowed: one is damage to public safety, the other is the end of another person's life.
 
2. [3] Differences in the object.
[4] The object violated by the crime of releasing hazardous substances is public safety, i.e., the safety of life and property of the majority, including specific majorities and unspecified majorities; the object violated by the crime of intentional homicide is the right to life of others. Public safety and the right to life are closely connected, leading to an overlap between the objects of the crime of releasing hazardous substances and the crime of homicide. It is precisely this issue that causes confusion in judicial practice when characterizing acts of killing by releasing hazardous substances. The objects of the various crimes and specific offenses stipulated in the specific provisions of China's Criminal Law are not absolutely juxtaposed or parallel; overlaps exist, and an overlap in objects does not necessarily mean an overlap in crimes. Conviction should adhere to the principle of unifying the subjective and objective aspects.
 
3. [5] Differences in the objective aspect between the crime of releasing hazardous substances and the crime of intentional homicide.
[6] In terms of the method of action, the crime of releasing hazardous substances is limited to releasing hazardous substances, which is merely one method of committing homicide. Regarding the result of the act, this refers only to cases of killing by releasing hazardous substances; if the lives of specific individuals or a small number of people are harmed, it constitutes homicide. If the lives of the majority are harmed, this involves public safety and may constitute the crime of releasing hazardous substances. In cases of imaginative concurrence between homicide and negligent poisoning, the punishment should follow the principle of choosing the heavier crime, and the crime of intentional homicide should be determined.

 

 
[1] The author's perspective
As a kindergarten teacher, disregarding children's lives and health due to a conflict with a colleague not only reflects a paranoid personality and psychology but also shows a lack of respect for life and weak legal awareness. The teacher whom children trusted becomes a poisoner, and the lover beside the pillow turns into a hidden perpetrator... These issues might have been avoided by "taking a step back." But who can guarantee that such a teacher, lover, or friend won't appear in their own life?
 
From the bus driver who drove into a lake to the kindergarten teacher who poisoned children, such incidents frequently occur in society, yet it is always innocent third parties who suffer. Events that retaliate against society, others, and breach the bottom line of conscience happen one after another. How much can we really do?