The Beijing Times reported on November 19 that yesterday, the second batch of CCTV Fire cases were sentenced in the second intermediate people's court. Zhongshan Shengxing Co., Ltd. and its three responsible persons, who purchased and constructed a large number of unqualified insulation boards for the distribution building of CCTV's new site, were found guilty of selling fake and inferior products in the first instance. The defendant unit was fined 1.1 million yuan, and the three responsible persons were respectively commuted to four and a half years' imprisonment, four years' imprisonment and two and a half years' imprisonment.

The three responsible persons are tangzhuchuang, deputy general manager of Zhongshan Shengxing company, guxianshu, executive manager of the company's project department in bid section B of CCTV new site, and lishuzhi, quality officer of the project department.

The court found that in December2006, Zhongshan Shengxing company, which was responsible for the design, supply and installation of curtain walls in bid section B of the new CCTV site, signed a supply contract with Langfang Huaneng building materials Co., Ltd. and agreed that Huaneng company would provide Extruded Boards with class B2 combustion performance. From December, 2006 to may, 2007, Zhongshan Shengxing company successively supplied and used the extruded board purchased from Huaneng company with an area of more than 4000 square meters and a total sales amount of more than 170000 yuan in the curtain wall project of bid section B of CCTV new site.

On may27,2007, the extruded boards purchased by Zhongshan Shengxing company from Huaneng company were spot checked by Beijing Municipal Bureau of quality supervision before construction and found that the combustion performance did not reach grade B2. After that, the batch of extruded boards were sealed. In the written report issued to the relevant departments, the company concealed the use of Extruded Boards, and did not further test the combustion performance of the installed extruded boards.

In October, 2007, Zhongshan Shengxing company changed the supplier without authorization. By April, 2008, it had purchased more than 21000 square meters of extruded boards without labels, certificates and product test reports to supply the CCTV new site project, with a total sales amount of more than 880000 yuan.

Tang Zhuchuang and Gu Xianshu, as the principals of the CCTV new site Project of Zhongshan Shengxing company, failed to notify the employer's representative and the supervision company of the change of the supplier as agreed in the contract. Lishuzhi, as a quality controller, was allowed to use the extruded board of Tianjiang company without obtaining the inspection report and certificate of quality, and did not inspect the extruded board of Tianjiang company during the construction.

On february9,2009, after the CCTV Fire, the extruded boards supplied and used by Zhongshan Shengxing company were extracted from the fire site, and their combustion performance did not reach grade B2.

At the hearing, the defender of the defendant unit considered that the prosecution had insufficient evidence and was not convicted of the prosecution. Tangzhuchuang doesn't think he is directly in charge; Gu Xianshu also believes that he is not responsible for the procurement and testing of materials; Lishuzhi claimed that he had reported relevant problems to the leaders, and yinfuqiang, his defender, also pointed out that lishuzhi had fulfilled his duties.

The court held that in order to seek illegal interests, Zhongshan Shengxing company sold fake and shoddy Extruded Boards with a sales amount of more than 1million yuan, which constituted the crime of selling fake and shoddy products. Tang Zhuchuang, Gu Xianshu and lishuzhi, as the persons directly in charge and the persons directly responsible for the unit crime, also constituted the crime of selling fake and inferior products.

The judgment did not accept the defense of the defendant unit and the defendants, but pointed out that although the three defendants did not have the statutory circumstances of mitigating punishment, in view of the special circumstances of the case, they were all given mitigated punishment according to law and reported to the Supreme People's court for approval.