“李昌奎案”一字之差的两份判决书,却是生与死两种截然不同的命运。法院在二审中以“李昌奎及其辩护人所提被告人具有自首情节、认罪、悔罪态度好,积极赔偿被害人家属”为由(我们将其视为适用死缓的积极条件),在终审判决书中改判李昌奎为死刑缓期二年执行。但是无论是从案件发生的背景还是被告人的作案手段、作案动机、危害后果等方面分析(适用死缓的消极条件),李昌奎的犯罪情节都极其恶劣。在法律未对死刑和死缓作出明确的区分时,我们的关注点在于死缓应当如何准确适用,即作为死刑和死缓界限的若干因素(积极条件和消极条件)应如何在社会观念和法律的“冲突”中得到正确考量。 “Li Changkui case ” word difference between the two verdict, but it is two completely different fates of life and death. In the second instance, the court held that in the final judgment, “Li Changkui and his defender’s allegations that the defendant has voluntarily surrendered himself, confessing his guilt, having a good attitude of repentance, and actively compensating the victim’s family” Li Changkui was suspended for two years in execution. However, both from the background of the case or from the means of crime committed by the accused, the motive of the crime, the consequences of the harm, etc. (the negative conditions for the cessation of death), Li Changkui’s criminal circumstances are extremely poor. When the law does not make a clear distinction between death penalty and death penalty, our focus is on how accurate the death penalty should be applied. That is, how certain factors (positive conditions and negative ones) as the threshold for death penalty and death should be defined in social concepts and laws, Conflict "get the correct consideration.