Isn't China known for harsh laws? Why can someone who hires a hitman to kill still get a suspended sentence, and why is the victim's cause of death partly blamed on having high blood pressure?

I'd really like to know which level of court decided this case—was it a basic-level court or an intermediate court? Sentencing standards for cases like hiring someone to commit murder already vary from region to region. Also, how does the judgment address the high blood pressure factor? Is it written into the reasoning section as a mitigating circumstance, or is it only part of the cause-of-death analysis in the forensic appraisal? Those two are very different in nature. If you could add a bit more of the wording from the judgment, the discussion would have a stronger basis.

Looking at just one issue may not give the full picture—you also need to consider the defendant's specific role in the case, whether there are circumstances such as voluntary surrender or meritorious service, and compensation or forgiveness from the victim, since all of these can affect sentencing. Jumping straight to the conclusion that 'harsh laws and severe punishments are not what they claim to be' without these premises seems like a bit of a leap to me.

The key is still whether the reasoning in the judgment holds up; an individual case cannot directly overturn the overall assessment.

I'd like to confirm whether this case is a first-instance judgment or a final ruling that has already taken effect. If it's still at the appeal stage, the current wording may change later. Also, is the statement that "the cause of death was partly attributed to hypertension" taken directly from the original judgment, or is it a paraphrase from a news report? News reports sometimes simplify forensic conclusions, which can easily give the impression that responsibility is being shifted to the victim. If there is a case number or the original judgment, it would be helpful to add it so everyone can see clearly how the court actually determined causation.