When taking the adult college entrance exam, a candidate, driven by a fluke mind, asked a friend to take the exam in his place, only to be caught red-handed when the friend handed in the exam paper. This seemingly "flawless" impersonation ultimately landed both individuals in the dock. What consequences will they face?

[Case Review]

In October 2024, during the National Unified Examination for College Admissions for Adults (hereinafter referred to as the ¡°Adult College Entrance Exam¡±), candidate Xiong, believing there was an opportunity to exploit, conceived the idea of finding someone to take the exam for him and thus approached its friend Yang to impersonate him in the exam. During the English exam, when Yang was leaving after handing in the exam paper, the invigilators detected the impersonation and called the police on the spot. The public security organ took both individuals to the police station for investigation. Subsequently, the public prosecution organ filed a public prosecution with the people's court for the crime of taking an exam on behalf of another.

After hearing the case, the people's court held that Yang, having successively held Xiong's ID card and admission ticket, took the math and English exams in Xiong's place, and thus both shall be held criminally liable for the crime of substitute for examination. Given that both individuals pleaded guilty and confessed their crimes truthfully after being apprehended, the people's court ultimately sentenced the defendants Xiong and Yang to three months' detention with a three-month probation period and a fine of CNY 3,000 each for the crime of substitute for examination.

[Judge's Remarks]

I. Integrity in exams is the bottom line; resorting to trickery will ultimately harm oneself.

Exams are not only a test of knowledge but also a test of personal integrity and moral character. The "scores" obtained through cheating means such as exam substitution are ultimately false. Once discovered, those involved will not only have their scores canceled but may also face legal sanctions and even long-term negative impacts on their personal credit and employment prospects. In this case, Xiong and Yang, driven by a fluke mind, attempted to pass the exam through deceptive means and ultimately both received criminal penalties, paying a heavy price. Candidates shall establish correct values, adhere to integrity in exams, and win the future with their true abilities.

II. The legal boundaries must not be crossed; those who defy the law must take responsibility.

Some candidates underestimate the seriousness of exam substitution and even mistakenly believe that it is merely a "violation" rather than a "crime." According to Article 284a of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, those who take exams in place of another person or have another person take exams in their places in a national examination prescribed by law constitute the crime of substitute for examination. As an important part of the national education examination system, the Adult College Entrance Exam falls within the scope of this crime, and any attempt to exploit loopholes or take shortcuts will ultimately be severely punished by law.

III. Invigilation responsibilities must be strengthened to jointly build a fair examination environment.

A fair examination environment requires the joint efforts of multiple parties. Any act of condoning or ignoring cheating undermines educational equity. Education examination authorities shall further strengthen invigilation training, strictly implement the identity verification system of "comparing the person with the ID card," and, where conditions permit, fully utilize technological means such as facial recognition to comprehensively enhance the ability to prevent cheating. At the same time, candidates and the general public shall also actively participate in supervision and promptly report acts of exam substitution and cheating. Only when the whole society jointly maintains examination fairness can those who resort to trickery have no opportunity to exploit, and those who take exams with integrity receive the rewards they deserve.

[Representative Comments]

Xu Yulan, Deputy to the People's Congress of Qingpu District, Shanghai, and Principal of Qingpu Jiahe Primary School

Examination fairness is an important cornerstone of social fairness, relating to the realization of equal educational opportunities and social justice. In this case of exam substitution, the two defendants, driven by a momentary fluke mind and attempting to evade assessment through improper means, not only seriously violated examination discipline but also broke national laws, ultimately reaping what they had sown. The people's court's ruling in accordance with the law not only demonstrates zero tolerance for illegal and criminal acts but also firmly upholds the national examination system and ensures fairness for the vast number of law-abiding candidates.

The conclusion of this case not only punished the defendants but also sent a clear signal to society that acts that disrupt the examination order through illegal means such as cheating and exam substitution will bear corresponding legal consequences in accordance with the law. It profoundly embodies the basic requirements of integrity and the rule of law in the core socialist values and further consolidates the social consensus that "cheating is shameful and integrity is glorious."

Exams are not only a means to test knowledge but also a touchstone for personal character and social credit. Scores obtained through fraud will ultimately not write a true life story. Only by establishing oneself with integrity can one win a future that truly belongs to oneself.

[Legal Provision Reference]

Criminal Law of the People¡¯s Republic of China

Article 284a Whoever organizes cheating in a national examination provided by law shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 3 years or short-term custody, and concurrently, a fine, or shall be sentenced to a fine only. If the circumstances are serious, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more than 7 years, and concurrently, a fine.

...

Whoever takes an examination mentioned in the first paragraph in someone else¡¯s place or asks others to take such an examination for him shall be sentenced to short-term custody or non-custodial correction, and concurrently, a fine, or shall be sentenced to a fine only.