The first one is a recidivist (累犯, repeat offender). Recidivism allows a sentence to be increased by up to 50% (Criminal Code Art. 47 Par. 1), unless the prior sentence is from a foreign court (Art. 49).
For the difference between the second one and the other two, we need to wait for the 全文 to find out.
Btw the minimum/maximum sentence for crimes in the “homicide” chapter varies:
-
murder of a lineal blood ascendant: min. life, max. death
-
2nd degree murder by “righteous indignation” (當場激於義憤而殺人): no min., max. 7 years
-
murder of newborn child by mother: min. 6 months, max. 5 years (does Andrew know about this?)
-
assisted suicide: min. 1 year, max. 7 years (unless it’s intended as a joint suicide)
-
negligently causing death: no min., max. 5 years and 3000 “yuan” (so actually 30,000?)
-
just plain homicide (殺人): min. 10 years, max. death
If I understand the relevant parts of the CC correctly, it’s that last one that we’re looking at here, and the four men are considered joint (共同) perpetrators, with no solicitor-accessory relationship, so that leaves the fact that the crime was merely attempted (Art. 25 Par. 2) as the most obvious reason for the below-minimum sentences. Further reasons for reducing a sentence can be found in Art. 59 and following.
Personally, I think these sentences of 3.5 to 6 years are insufficient, but I look forward to reading the court’s reasoning.
Honorable Charlie has probably posted more useful/interesting information over the years than my worthless self ever will. 