近日，中國媒體報導一起因金錢糾紛與長期矛盾引發的重大刑事案件。被告程某康以從事生意、資金周轉等理由，多次向其女友管某雷借款，累計金額高達二十九萬元人民幣。然而，事後查明，這些借款並未用於正當用途，而是被程某康全部揮霍在賭博活動中，導致債務無法償還，雙方關係亦隨之急遽惡化。

隨著時間推移，管某雷逐漸察覺借款去向異常，並對程某康沉迷賭博、逃避責任的行為感到失望與憤怒。她多次提出分手，並明確要求程某康返還所借款項，但均遭到拒絕。程某康不僅未積極面對債務問題，反而因感情破裂與還款壓力心生不滿，情緒逐步失控。

在激烈衝突之下，程某康最終對管某雷痛下殺手，造成其死亡。案發後，程某康並未立即投案，而是逃離現場，躲藏於某住宅小區居民樓的樓頂。警方接獲通報後迅速展開行動，對該居民樓進行布控與包圍，封鎖所有可能的逃跑路線。隨著包圍圈逐漸收緊，程某康意識到自己已無路可逃，最終自行下樓，配合警方將其拘捕歸案。

在隨後的司法程序中，程某康的辯護人主張，其在警方尚未強制抓捕前主動下樓接受拘捕，並如實供述犯罪經過，應依法認定為自首，請求從輕或減輕處罰。然而，法院經審理認為，程某康在案發後曾有明確的逃匿行為，並非在犯罪後第一時間主動投案，其所謂「配合抓捕」並不符合自首在法律上的構成要件。

最終，法院依法認定程某康的行為已構成故意殺人罪，犯罪動機惡劣，手段殘忍，後果極其嚴重，且未具備法定從輕情節，依法判處死刑。該判決經最高人民法院覆核後，確認一審、二審判決事實清楚、證據確實充分、定罪量刑正確，依法核准死刑，案件至此告一段落。

According to recent reports from Chinese media, a serious criminal case arose from financial disputes and escalating personal conflict. The defendant, Cheng Moukang, borrowed a total of 290,000 yuan from his girlfriend, Guan Moulei, under the pretext of doing business and needing funds for turnover. Subsequent investigation revealed that none of the borrowed money was used for legitimate purposes; instead, it was entirely spent on gambling, leaving Cheng unable to repay the debt and causing the relationship between the two to deteriorate rapidly.

As time went on, Guan Moulei gradually became aware that the borrowed money had been misused. She grew increasingly disappointed and angry over Cheng Moukang’s gambling addiction and his continued avoidance of responsibility. She repeatedly requested to end the relationship and demanded repayment of the money she had lent him, but her requests were consistently refused. Rather than confronting his financial obligations, Cheng Moukang became resentful under the combined pressure of the breakup and the debt, and his emotions spiraled out of control.

During a fierce confrontation, Cheng Moukang ultimately attacked Guan Moulei with a knife, killing her. After the crime, he did not immediately surrender to the authorities. Instead, he fled the scene and hid on the rooftop of a residential building in a housing complex. After receiving reports of the incident, the police quickly launched an operation and surrounded the building, sealing off all possible escape routes. As the perimeter tightened, Cheng Moukang realized that escape was impossible and eventually came downstairs to cooperate with the police and was taken into custody.

During the subsequent judicial proceedings, Cheng Moukang’s defense counsel argued that because he went downstairs and accepted arrest before being forcibly apprehended, and because he truthfully confessed to his crime, his actions should be recognized as voluntary surrender under the law, warranting leniency or a reduced sentence. However, after reviewing the case, the court determined that Cheng Moukang had clearly attempted to evade capture after committing the crime and did not turn himself in at the earliest opportunity. His so-called cooperation with the arrest therefore did not meet the legal criteria for voluntary surrender.

Ultimately, the court ruled that Cheng Moukang’s actions constituted intentional homicide. The court found his motive to be particularly reprehensible, the means cruel, and the consequences extremely severe, with no statutory mitigating circumstances. He was therefore sentenced to death in accordance with the law. After review by the Supreme People’s Court, it was concluded that the facts were clear, the evidence was solid, and the conviction and sentencing were appropriate. The death sentence was legally approved, bringing the case to its conclusion.