Fine refers to the penalty method by which a court imposes a certain amount of money on the offender to pay to the state. Fine belongs to a type of property penalty and is an additional penalty in Chinese criminal law. There are different understandings in judicial practice as to whether the sentencing circumstances of mitigated punishment and lighter punishment stipulated in the criminal law can be applied to additional punishment. Therefore, the author discusses several issues related to the impact of sentencing circumstances on fine punishment.

1、 Can the fine be reduced together with the main penalty when applying a mitigated punishment to the main penalty

According to the Criminal Law, if there is a mitigating circumstance, the punishment shall be imposed below the statutory penalty. However, there is significant controversy in judicial practice as the Criminal Law does not clearly stipulate whether reduced punishment is also applicable to additional punishments. One view is that mitigated punishment only applies to the principal punishment, and there is no legal basis for mitigating additional punishment; Another view is that mitigated punishment should be applied to both the principal and additional punishments. I agree with the latter viewpoint.

（1） There is a legal basis for the application of reduced punishment to fine punishment

Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law stipulates: "If a criminal has a mitigated punishment as stipulated in this Law, he shall be sentenced to a punishment below the statutory punishment." When a certain sentencing range specified in the Criminal Law has both the main punishment and the additional punishment, the additional punishment undoubtedly belongs to the component of the "statutory punishment". When the perpetrator has a mitigating circumstance and needs to be sentenced below the statutory penalty, it is necessary to reflect mitigation in both the application of the main penalty and the application of the additional penalty.

2. The second (third) point of Article 2 of the "Guiding Opinions on the Measurement of Sentencing for Common Crimes (Trial)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Guiding Opinions") stipulates that "if the adjustment result of the sentencing circumstances on the benchmark penalty is below the statutory minimum penalty, and there are statutory mitigating circumstances, and the criminal responsibility and punishment are appropriate, it can be directly determined as a declared penalty." Therefore, it can be inferred that the adjustment of the sentencing circumstances on the penalty should also include the adjustment of additional penalty, As long as there are mitigating circumstances and the criminal responsibility and punishment are appropriate, a fine adjusted below the statutory minimum penalty can be determined as a declared penalty.

（2） Reducing penalties while applying fines can better reflect the consistency of sentencing

From the provisions of the Criminal Law, the Criminal Law provides different punishments for different criminal circumstances, and different main punishments have corresponding additional punishments. Therefore, there is a one-to-one correspondence between crime and punishment, as well as between main punishments and additional punishments, such as the crime of loan fraud, bill fraud, and the crime of illegally selling value-added tax invoices. In addition, taking the crime of producing and selling counterfeit drugs as an example, the sentencing of this crime is divided into three levels. Assuming that the defendant in this crime produces and sells more than 200000 yuan, the sentencing level is the second level. If the defendant has circumstances such as surrendering or confessing, the final sentence may be announced in the first level. If only mitigated punishment is applied to the main penalty, the main penalty and fine penalty within different sentencing ranges will ultimately be obtained. This breaks the correspondence between the main penalty and fine penalty and the consistency of sentencing, which can easily lead to confusion in criminal punishment. Therefore, the mitigated punishment should be applied to both the principal punishment and the fine punishment.

（3） The principle of reducing punishment while applying fine punishment in accordance with criminal responsibility and punishment

The Criminal Law stipulates that the severity of punishment should be commensurate with the crimes committed and the responsibilities borne by the criminals, which is the principle of criminal responsibility and punishment, also known as the principle of balance between crime and punishment. When sentencing, a comprehensive evaluation should be made based on factors such as the defendant's criminal facts, nature, circumstances, and social harm. If the defendant is given a mitigated punishment based on the statutory mitigating circumstances, it should be fully and comprehensively reflected in the sentencing process. When the main punishment is mitigated, the additional fine should also be mitigated, in order to better implement the principle of balance between crime and punishment.

（4） There are viewpoints and case studies supporting the application of both mitigating punishment and fine punishment in judicial practice

The "Interpretation of the Latest Criminal Law Documents" published in 2007 pointed out that mitigated punishment applies to additional punishments, and also includes the reduction of heavier punishments to lighter punishments in additional punishments. The article "How to apply mitigated punishment to the main punishment and additional punishment?" in the 15th issue of "People's Justice (Application)" in 2008 also pointed out that mitigated punishment should be a punishment that is imposed as a whole (including both the main punishment and the additional punishment) below the statutory punishment, rather than the main punishment being imposed below the statutory punishment and the additional punishment remaining unchanged.

In the "Selected Cases of the People's Court" published in 2009, it was clearly pointed out in the "rape and robbery cases by Xu and others" that "when the main punishment is mitigated in accordance with the law, the additional punishment should be alleviated together", and "after the punishment is mitigated, the applicable main punishment and additional punishment refer to the main punishment and additional punishment with a reduced degree." The "Cheng Naiwei Kidnapping Case" in Criminal Trial Reference No. 182 also indicates the same attitude, that is, when mitigating the punishment, The additional punishment is also reduced.

2、 How to coordinate the reduction of main penalty and fine penalty in the application process of statutory reduction of circumstances

（1） Can a fine be mitigated when the main punishment is given a lighter punishment

This issue is related to whether the fine penalty can be mitigated when the criminal has a mitigating circumstance but the main punishment is lighter. The author believes that as long as the adjustment result of the sentencing circumstances to the benchmark punishment conforms to the principle of adapting the crime responsibility punishment, a mitigated punishment can be applied to the fine while choosing a lighter punishment for the main punishment.

According to the spirit of the Guiding Opinions, the benchmark penalty must be within the statutory sentencing range, but after adjusting the sentencing circumstances, the declared penalty is not necessarily within the statutory sentencing range. At this point, regardless of whether the main penalty and fine penalty are still within the sentencing range, as long as they comply with the principle of compatibility between criminal responsibility and punishment, they can be determined as declared punishment. In addition, according to the provisions of Article 61 of the Criminal Law and Article 2 of the Supreme Law's "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Property Penalties", it can be seen that the basis for sentencing the main penalty and the fine penalty are not entirely the same. The imposition of a fine needs to consider the economic situation of the criminal, but the basis for sentencing the main penalty does not include the economic situation of the criminal. The law does not explicitly stipulate that both the fine penalty and the main penalty must be mitigated or mitigated at the same time. Moreover, due to the different sentencing bases of the main penalty and the fine penalty, their respective adjustments are naturally different, and the results of the adjustments cannot guarantee that the main penalty and the fine penalty can be both mitigated or mitigated at the same time. However, as long as they are compatible with the criminal behavior and the criminal responsibility that the criminal element should bear, they can ensure that the fine penalty plays its due role and achieve the optimal punishment effect, It can be determined as a declaration of punishment.

There are cases in judicial practice that support the application of mitigated punishment to the main penalty while also mitigating the fine. In the Criminal Trial Reference No. 829- Zhu Shenghu and other illegal business cases, Wang Mouxiang was sentenced to one year and six months in prison, suspended for two years, and fined RMB 40000 for the crime of illegal business operations. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the original public prosecution was dissatisfied and filed a protest, stating that the criminal law stipulates that the fine for the crime of illegal business operations is between one and five times the amount of illegal gains. The original trial court found that Wang Mouxiang's illegal gains involved in the case were 70000 yuan, and the fine for Wang Mouxiang should be over 70000 yuan. The original trial court sentenced a fine of 40000 yuan, which was clearly a sentencing error. The second instance court held that the original trial had confirmed that Wang Mouxiang's role and status were clearly secondary and he was an accessory. Considering the amount of business operations involved in Wang Mouxiang's case, his personal actual income, the duration of the crime, and his ability to pay fines, the original trial court, in order to ensure that the fine punishment plays its due role, applied the circumstances of the accomplice and imposed a lighter punishment on Wang Mouxiang's main punishment. At the same time, it was not inappropriate to reduce the fine punishment imposed on him. It can be seen that while the main punishment is given a lighter punishment, the fine penalty can be mitigated.

（2） When the fine penalties for the same crime are the same for two different sentencing ranges, the sentencing range after one reduction according to the Criminal Law is equivalent to the original sentencing range. Can we continue to reduce beyond this sentencing range to reflect the spirit of reduction

Taking the crime of loan fraud as an example, there are three levels of sentencing for this crime. If the perpetrator's loan fraud behavior meets the requirements of a special aggravating offense, but has a legally mitigated circumstance, it is appropriate to reduce it to an aggravating offense according to the circumstances, that is, the main punishment is imprisonment for not less than five years but not more than ten years. How can a fine be imposed? Is it to be sentenced within the range of "between 50000 yuan and 500000 yuan" or under 50000 yuan? Another example is the crime of fraudulently obtaining export tax refunds, where the fines for all three levels of sentencing are one to five times the amount of tax fraudulently obtained (the third level also includes confiscation of property). Can the fines imposed on the defendant exceed the above-mentioned multiple fines to alleviate the spirit of withdrawal?

For example, in the (2018) Zhejiang 0782 Criminal Case No. 785, Liu Moulan (a financial officer) constituted the crime of defrauding export tax refunds, and assisted in defrauding export tax refunds of RMB 2594995.83. He committed voluntary surrender and was an accomplice. The first instance court sentenced him to two years in prison, suspended his sentence for three years, and punished him with a fine of RMB 50000. The procuratorate protested on the grounds that "the first instance sentenced Liu Moulan to two years in prison, suspended for three years, and fined RMB 50000, which crossed two sentencing ranges and reduced the punishment, was a mistake in applying the law, resulting in a disproportionately light sentencing", and requested the second instance court to correct it. The second instance court sentenced Liu Moulan to five years in prison and fined RMB 50000. It can be seen that although the second instance court reduced the main sentence by one file and changed the sentence, the fine still upheld the original judgment. In this case, considering Liu Moulan's status and role, if Liu Moulan is fined not less than twice but not more than five times the amount of tax defrauded, it clearly violates the principle of balance between crime and punishment.

The above case is a situation where the fine punishment has been reduced beyond the statutory minimum sentencing range, fully implementing the principle of compatibility between criminal responsibility and punishment. In judicial practice, there is also a contrary view that the reduction of additional punishment must be strictly in accordance with legal provisions, and within the penalty range specified in the Criminal Law, the main punishment and additional punishment should be coordinated and reduced as a whole. The author believes that specific issues should be analyzed. Taking the above case as an example, if a fine can only be imposed within the next range of the statutory penalty range, it will lead to a serious imbalance between crime and punishment, and cannot reflect judicial fairness.

（3） When multiple mitigating circumstances coexist, can the fine be mitigated across different levels until exempted from punishment

This is also a controversial issue in judicial practice. One view is that when the defendant has two or more mitigating circumstances, the sentence can be reduced across stages until the punishment is exempted, because if the punishment is only imposed within the next range of the statutory punishment range, there is no difference in sentencing compared to sentencing with only one mitigating circumstance, it will lead to an imbalance in sentencing, which does not comply with the principle of criminal responsibility and punishment; Another viewpoint holds that the reduction of punishment can only be imposed within the next range of the statutory punishment, which is a requirement of the principle of legality. I agree with the first viewpoint.

Firstly, the provision of mitigated punishment in Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law is only applicable in cases where there is one mitigating circumstance and does not provide for situations where there are multiple mitigating or exempting circumstances. Mechanically understanding and applying criminal law provisions can easily lead to an imbalance between crime and punishment, which is not conducive to achieving judicial justice.

Secondly, there is support from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Professor Zhang Mingkai's book "Criminal Law (Part 1)" (Fifth Edition, 2016) argues that when the defendant has two or more mitigating circumstances, in principle, the sentencing range can also be reduced by two. The book Understanding and Application of the Provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment (VIII) and the Supporting judicial interpretation (2011 Edition), edited by Zhang Jun, the former vice president of the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of China, believes that if there is only one mitigating circumstance, only the next one can be punished. However, if the circumstances are "mitigated or exempted from punishment", or if the defendant has two or more mitigated circumstances, they may not be subject to this restriction. The article "Correct Application of Article 63 of the Criminal Law on the Reduction of Punishment" published in the People's Justice at the end of 2020 (Issue 26) proposes that the principle of compatibility between crime and punishment is applicable. If the defendant has a statutory reduction or exemption from punishment, or has two or more mitigating circumstances, they may not be subject to the restriction of sentencing within the next sentencing range of the statutory sentencing range, and may be sentenced within two ranges below the statutory sentencing range.

Thirdly, there are cases to refer to in judicial practice. For example, in the (2016) Yue 1702 Xing Chu No. 349 case, the defendant Ou Mou constituted the crime of drug trafficking, and had the circumstances of legally mitigated or exempted punishment such as juvenile delinquency, attempted crime, accessory, etc., the court of first instance sentenced him to 7 years' imprisonment and fined him 2000 yuan. The second instance court sentenced him to 4 years in prison and fined 1000 yuan. For example, in the (2017) Qian 05 Criminal Termination Case No. 273, the defendants He Mou A and He Mou have committed the crime of selling food that does not meet safety standards. He Mou A has voluntarily surrendered, sold a small amount of food, had a short time, and pleaded guilty to punishment. He Mou B has voluntarily surrendered, was an accomplice, sold a small amount of food, had a short time, and pleaded guilty to punishment. The first instance court sentenced He Moujia to one year and four months in prison, and also fined RMB 100000; He was sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for two years, and fined RMB 50000. The second instance court sentenced He Moujia to one year and four months in prison, suspended his sentence for two years, and fined RMB 50000; He has been exempted from criminal punishment.

3、 The lenient punishment also applies to both the principal punishment and the fine punishment

According to the provisions of the Criminal Law and relevant judicial interpretation, in combination with the above spirit of "mitigating circumstances apply to both the principal punishment and fine punishment", the circumstances of lesser punishment naturally apply to both the principal punishment and fine punishment. In addition, there are only lighter punishment circumstances, but according to the special circumstances of the case, with the approval of the Supreme People's Court, the punishment can also be imposed below the statutory punishment.