Year 13 CCEA Law: Core Knowledge Summary | Year 13 CCEA 法律：核心知识点梳理

📚 Year 13 CCEA Law: Core Knowledge Summary | Year 13 CCEA 法律：核心知识点梳理

Year 13 CCEA Law introduces students to the foundational principles of the English legal system, criminal law, and tort law. This article summarises the essential topics, key cases, and statutory provisions that underpin the AS-level specification. Whether you are revising for a module exam or building a strong base for A2, these notes provide a clear, bilingual walkthrough of the core content.

Year 13 CCEA 法律课程向学生介绍英格兰法律体系、刑法和侵权法的基本原理。本文汇总了AS阶段的关键主题、重要判例和法条规定，帮助你系统梳理知识。无论是准备单元考试还是为A2打基础，这份中英双语梳理都能带你清晰掌握核心内容。

1. The Nature of Law and Legal Systems | 法律的性质与法律体系

Law can be defined as a set of rules created by the state to regulate behaviour, enforceable through the courts. It is distinct from moral rules or customs, although there is often overlap. The English legal system is a common law system, developed through judicial decisions alongside statutes passed by Parliament. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is the supreme law-making body, and no court can strike down primary legislation.

法律可被定义为由国家制定的、用以规范行为并通过法院强制执行的一套规则。尽管法律与道德、习惯常有交集，但二者本质不同。英格兰法律体系属于普通法系，通过司法判例和议会制定的成文法共同发展而来。议会主权原则意味着议会是最高的立法机关，任何法院都不能推翻其基本立法。

A key feature of the English system is the rule of law, a principle established by A.V. Dicey, which holds that no person is above the law, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and the constitution is the result of ordinary law. The separation of powers divides state authority among the legislature (Parliament), the executive (government), and the judiciary (courts) to prevent tyranny.

英格兰法律体系的一个关键特征是法治原则，由戴雪（A.V. Dicey）确立，主张任何人都不能凌驾于法律之上，人人有权获得公正审判，宪政秩序来源于普通法。权力分立将国家权力划分给立法机关（议会）、行政机关（政府）和司法机关（法院），以防止权力滥用。

---

2. Sources of Law | 法律渊源

The major sources of English law are Acts of Parliament (statute law) and judicial precedent (case law). Statute law is created through the legislative process: a bill passes through the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and receives Royal Assent. Delegated legislation, such as statutory instruments, by-laws, and Orders in Council, allows other bodies to make law under the authority of a parent Act.

英格兰法律的主要渊源是议会立法（成文法）和司法判例（判例法）。成文法通过立法程序产生：法案依次经过下议院、上议院，最终获得御准。授权立法，如行政规章、地方规章和枢密院令，允许其他机构在授权法的授权下制定法律。

Judicial precedent operates on the doctrine of stare decisis (let the decision stand). Courts are bound by decisions of higher courts in the hierarchy. The Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) binds all lower courts, although it may depart from its own previous decisions under the Practice Statement 1966. The Court of Appeal is bound by the Supreme Court and generally binds its own divisions. Ratio decidendi is the binding reason for a decision, while obiter dicta are persuasive remarks.

司法判例基于遵循先例原则（stare decisis）。法院受上级法院判决的约束。最高法院（前身为上议院）约束所有下级法院，尽管它可根据1966年实践声明偏离自身先前的判决。上诉法院受最高法院约束，通常也约束其自身各庭。判决理由（ratio decidendi）是具约束力的判案依据，而附带意见（obiter dicta）仅具有说服力。

European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights have also influenced English law, particularly through the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with Convention rights where possible.

欧盟法律和《欧洲人权公约》也影响了英格兰法律，特别是通过《1998年人权法》，该法要求法院尽可能以符合公约权利的方式解释立法。

---

3. Criminal Law: General Principles | 刑法：一般原则

To establish criminal liability, the prosecution must prove both the actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (guilty mind), unless the offence is one of strict liability. The actus reus can involve a voluntary act, an omission (where a duty to act exists), or a state of affairs. Omissions liability arises in specific circumstances, such as a contractual duty (Pittwood), a duty due to a special relationship (Gibbins and Proctor), or a duty created by a person’s assumption of responsibility (Stone and Dobinson).

要确立刑事责任，控方必须同时证明犯罪行为（actus reus）和犯罪意图（mens rea），除非该罪行属于严格责任。犯罪行为可表现为自愿作为、不作为（当存在作为义务时）或持有状态。不作为责任仅在特定情形下产生，例如合同义务（Pittwood案）、基于特殊关系的义务（Gibbins and Proctor案），或由承担照顾责任产生的义务（Stone and Dobinson案）。

Mens rea refers to the mental element required for an offence: intention (direct or oblique), recklessness, negligence, or knowledge. Direct intention means the defendant’s aim or purpose was to bring about the prohibited consequence. Oblique intention, per R v Woollin, covers situations where the consequence was a virtual certainty of the defendant’s actions and the defendant appreciated that. Recklessness was historically objective (Caldwell), but for most non-fatal offences, subjective recklessness (R v Cunningham) is required, meaning the defendant foresaw the risk and went on to take it.

犯罪意图指罪行所要求的主观要素：故意（直接或间接）、轻率、过失或明知。直接故意指被告的目标或目的就是造成被禁止的后果。根据R v Woollin案，间接故意适用于后果是被告行为的几乎确定发生的必然结果、且被告认识到这一点的情况。历史上轻率采用客观标准（Caldwell案），但对于大多数非致命犯罪，需要主观轻率（R v Cunningham案），即被告预见到风险但仍然冒险行事。

Causation links the defendant’s conduct to the result. Factual causation is established by the ‘but for’ test (R v White). Legal causation requires that the defendant’s act was the substantial and operating cause of the harm (R v Smith; R v Cheshire). An intervening act (novus actus interveniens) may break the chain of causation unless it was a natural consequence of the defendant’s act or foreseeable.

因果关系将被告的行为与结果联系在一起。事实因果关系通过”若非”标准（R v White案）来判断。法律因果关系要求被告的行为是损害的实质性和起作用的因素（R v Smith案；R v Cheshire案）。介入行为（novus actus interveniens）可能中断因果关系链，除非它是被告行为的自然结果或可预见。

---

4. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person | 针对人身的非致命犯罪

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861) sets out the main non-fatal offences. Assault and battery are common law offences. Assault is causing the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force (R v Ireland; R v Burstow). Battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force (Collins v Wilcock). Both require intention or subjective recklessness as to their respective elements.

《1861年侵害人身罪法》（OAPA 1861）规定了主要的非致命罪行。普通法上的袭击（assault）和殴打（battery）是两种基础犯罪。袭击是使被害人担心即将遭受非法暴力（R v Ireland案；R v Burstow案）。殴打是实际施加非法暴力（Collins v Wilcock案）。两者都要求对各自主观要件具有故意或主观轻率。

Section 47 OAPA 1861 creates the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). The actus reus is an assault or battery which causes ABH, defined as any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim (R v Chan-Fook). The mens rea is the same as for assault or battery; no additional mental element regarding the harm is needed (R v Savage; R v Parmenter).

OAPA 1861 第47条规定了袭击致实际身体伤害罪（ABH）。犯罪行为是造成ABH的袭击或殴打，”实际身体伤害”指任何影响被害人健康或舒适的损伤（R v Chan-Fook案）。犯罪意图与袭击或殴打相同；无需对伤害结果具有额外的犯意（R v Savage案；R v Parmenter案）。

Section 20 OAPA 1861 governs malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH). The actus reus is wounding (a break in the continuity of the whole skin) or inflicting GBH (really serious harm, DPP v Smith). ‘Inflict’ requires the direct or indirect application of force (R v Burstow; R v Ireland). The mens rea is malice, meaning intention or subjective recklessness as to some harm, albeit not necessarily serious harm (R v Mowatt).

OAPA 1861 第20条规定了恶意致伤或造成严重身体伤害罪（GBH）。犯罪行为是致伤（完整皮肤的断裂）或造成GBH（真正严重的伤害，DPP v Smith案）。”造成”一词要求直接或间接地施力（R v Burstow案；R v Ireland案）。犯罪意图是恶意，即意图或主观轻率地对他人造成某种伤害，不一定是严重伤害（R v Mowatt案）。

Section 18 OAPA 1861 is the most serious, covering wounding or causing GBH with intent. The actus reus mirrors section 20 but uses ’cause’ which is wider than ‘inflict’. The mens rea requires specific intent: either an intent to do GBH or an intent to resist or prevent lawful arrest/detention while causing GBH. This is a specific intent offence.

OAPA 1861 第18条是最严重的形态，规定了意图致严重身体伤害罪。犯罪行为与第20条类似，但使用”导致”一词，范围比”造成”更宽。犯罪意图要求特定故意：故意造成GBH的意图，或者在造成GBH时意图抗拒或阻止合法逮捕/拘留的意图。这是一个特定故意犯罪。

---

5. Property Offences | 财产犯罪

Theft is defined in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. The actus reus comprises appropriation (s.3: any assumption of the rights of an owner), property (s.4: money, personal property, real property, things in action, intangible property), and belonging to another (s.5: possession, control, or any proprietary interest).

盗窃罪由《1968年盗窃法》第1条定义：以永久剥夺他人财产为目的，不诚实地将他人的财产据为己有。犯罪行为包括：侵占（第3条：任何行使所有权人权利的行为）、财产（第4条：货币、动产、不动产、诉讼物、无形财产）和属于他人的财产（第5条：占有、控制或任何所有权利益）。

The mens rea of theft requires dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive. Dishonesty is partially defined in section 2, which provides situations not dishonest. If not excluded, the common law test from R v Ghosh was historically used, but the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos replaced it with a test based on the defendant’s actual state of mind and whether his conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary reasonable people. Intention to permanently deprive includes treating the property as one’s own regardless of the other’s rights, or borrowing for a period equivalent to outright taking (s.6).

盗窃的犯罪意图要求不诚实和永久剥夺的意图。不诚实部分由第2条定义，列举了不构成不诚实的情形。若无法排除，以往适用R v Ghosh案的普通法标准，但最高法院在Ivey v Genting Casinos案中以新的标准取而代之：根据被告的实际思想状态，并结合普通理性人的标准判断行为是否不诚实。永久剥夺的意图包括将他人财产视为己有不顾他人权利，或借用时间相当于完全拿走（第6条）。

Robbery, under section 8, is theft immediately before or at the time of stealing, with the use or threat of force in order to steal. Burglary (s.9) involves entering any building or part of a building as a trespasser, with intent to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage (s.9(1)(a)), or after entry committing such an offence (s.9(1)(b)).

抢劫罪（第8条）是指在盗窃的同时或紧接盗窃之前，为实施盗窃而使用或威胁使用暴力。入室盗窃罪（第9条）是指作为侵入者进入任何建筑物或建筑物的一部分，意图实施盗窃、造成GBH或刑事毁坏（第9条第1款a项），或者进入后实际实施了上述犯罪（第9条第1款b项）。

---

6. General Defences in Criminal Law | 刑法中的一般抗辩

A successful defence can result in a complete acquittal or reduce liability. Self-defence and the prevention of crime (Criminal Law Act 1967, s.3) allow reasonable force in the circumstances as the defendant honestly believed them to be (R v Gladstone Williams; R v Beckford). The force must be necessary and proportionate, judged by the jury with reference to the defendant’s honest belief, even if mistaken due to intoxication (R v O’Grady).

成功的抗辩可导致无罪释放或减轻责任。自卫和预防犯罪（《1967年刑事法》第3条）允许在当时情况下、基于被告真诚相信的情形使用合理的武力（R v Gladstone Williams案；R v Beckford案）。武力必须是必要的且程度相称，陪审团将结合被告真诚的信念加以判断，即便该错误信念是由醉酒引起的（R v O’Grady案）。

Duress by threats arises when the defendant committed a crime because of a threat of death or serious injury to himself or another for whom he reasonably regarded himself responsible (R v Hasan). The threat must be immediate or imminent, the defendant must have had no reasonable avenue of escape, and the defence is not available for murder or attempted murder (R v Howe). Duress of circumstances is similar but arises from a situation rather than a direct threat (R v Martin).

被迫行为（威胁胁迫）指被告因受到死亡或严重伤害的威胁，为自己或他合理认为负有责任的人，而实施了犯罪（R v Hasan案）。威胁必须是立即或迫在眉睫的，被告没有合理的逃避途径，且该抗辩不适用于谋杀或谋杀未遂（R v Howe案）。情势胁迫同理，但源于客观环境而非直接威胁（R v Martin案）。

Intoxication is not a defence per se, but it may negate mens rea for specific intent offences if the intoxication was involuntary (R v Kingston) or if the defendant was so intoxicated that he could not form the required specific intent (DPP v Majewski). Voluntary intoxication is no defence to basic intent offences because recklessness in getting drunk supplies the necessary mens rea.

醉酒本身不是抗辩，但如果醉酒是非自愿的（R v Kingston案），或者被告因严重醉酒而无法形成特定故意的犯意（DPP v Majewski案），则可能否定特定故意犯罪的犯罪意图。对于基本故意犯罪，自愿醉酒不构成抗辩，因为醉酒过程中的轻率行为提供了必要的犯意。

Consent may be a defence to assault or battery if the victim genuinely consented to the activity, provided it is not in the public interest to criminalise the conduct. Consent is generally irrelevant to ABH or above, unless within recognised exceptions such as sports, surgery, or tattooing (R v Brown).

同意可作为袭击或殴打的抗辩，前提是被害人真诚同意该行为，且将该行为犯罪化不符合公共利益。对于ABH及以上伤害，同意一般不影响刑事责任，除非属于公认的例外情况，如竞技体育、外科手术或纹身（R v Brown案）。

---

7. Tort Law: Introduction to Negligence | 侵权法：过失侵权导论

The tort of negligence requires proof of three elements: a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and damage caused by the breach. The modern duty of care test stems from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman: foreseeability of harm, proximity between the parties, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. Established duty situations, such as driver to road user or doctor to patient, do not generally require the Caparo test.

过失侵权需要证明三个要素：注意义务、违反义务、以及因违反义务造成的损害。现代注意义务标准源自Caparo Industries plc v Dickman案：损害可预见性、当事人之间的关联性、以及施加义务是否公平、公正和合理。已确立的注意义务关系，如司机对道路使用者、医生对病人，通常不需要适用Caparo标准。

Breach of duty is judged by the standard of the reasonable person (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks). The standard may be adjusted for professionals (Bolam test: a professional is not negligent if he acted in accordance with a responsible body of professional opinion), but this was refined in Bolitho v City and Hackney HA, which requires the opinion to be logical and defensible. Special standards apply to children (Mullin v Richards) and learners (Nettleship v Weston).

违反注意义务以普通理性人的标准来判断（Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks案）。专业人士的标准有所调整（Bolam标准：如果专业人士的行为与一个负责任的专业团体的意见一致，则不构成过失），但Bolitho v City and Hackney HA案进一步要求该意见必须合乎逻辑且站得住脚。对儿童（Mullin v Richards案）和学习者（Nettleship v Weston案）适用特殊标准。

Risk factors considered in deciding breach include the likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone), the seriousness of potential harm (Paris v Stepney Borough Council), the cost and practicality of taking precautions (Latimer v AEC Ltd), and the social utility of the defendant’s conduct (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council).

判断是否违反义务时考虑的风险因素包括：损害发生的可能性（Bolton v Stone案）、潜在损害的严重性（Paris v Stepney Borough Council案）、采取预防措施的成本和可行性（Latimer v AEC Ltd案），以及被告行为的社会效用（Watt v Hertfordshire County Council案）。

---

8. Causation and Damage in Negligence | 过失侵权中的因果关系与损害

Once a duty and breach are established, the claimant must show that the breach caused the damage. Factual causation applies the ‘but for’ test (Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital). Legal causation considers whether the defendant’s breach was the operating and substantial cause of the harm, and whether any intervening acts broke the chain. A novus actus interveniens can be the claimant’s own unreasonable act (McKew v Holland), a third party’s act (Knightley v Johns), or a natural event.

在确立了注意义务和违反义务之后，原告必须证明该违反行为导致了损害。事实因果关系适用”若非”标准（Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital案）。法律因果关系考察被告的违反行为是否是损害的有效和实质性原因，以及是否有介入行为中断了因果关系链。介入行为可能是原告自身不合理的行为（McKew v Holland案）、第三方行为（Knightley v Johns案）或自然事件。

Remoteness of damage limits the defendant’s liability to losses that were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach (The Wagon Mound (No 1)). The type of damage must be foreseeable, but the extent or precise manner need not be (Hughes v Lord Advocate). The ‘egg shell skull’ rule provides that the defendant must take the claimant as he finds him, meaning liability exists even for unforeseeable extents of injury if personal injury was foreseeable (Smith v Leech Brain).

损害的遥远性原则将被告的责任限定于违反义务时合理可预见的损失（The Wagon Mound (No 1)案）。损害的类型必须可预见，但程度或具体方式无需预见（Hughes v Lord Advocate案）。”蛋壳脑袋”规则要求被告必须接受原告的特殊体质，即只要人身伤害可预见，即使损害程度不可预见，被告仍需承担责任（Smith v Leech Brain案）。

---

9. Occupiers’ Liability | 占有人责任

Occupiers’ liability deals with the duty owed by occupiers of premises to entrants. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 covers lawful visitors. An occupier is anyone with sufficient control over the premises (Wheat v E Lacon). A visitor is someone who has express or implied permission to enter. The common duty of care under s.2(2) requires the occupier to take such care as is reasonable in all circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe. Special provisions apply to children (s.2(3)(a)) and persons exercising a calling (s.2(3)(b)). Warnings may discharge the duty (s.2(4)(a)), and independent contractors may be liable if the occupier acted reasonably in entrusting work to them (s.2(4)(b)).

占有人责任规范的是场所占有人对进入者所负的义务。《1957年占有人责任法》适用于合法访客。占有者是指对场所拥有足够控制权的人（Wheat v E Lacon案）。访客是指拥有明示或默示许可进入的人。根据第2条第2款，一般注意义务要求占有人在所有情况下采取合理注意，确保访客合理地安全。特别规定适用于儿童（第2条第3款a项）和从事职业活动的人（第2条第3款b项）。警告可解除义务（第2条第4款a项），如果将工作委托给独立承包人是合理的，则由承包人承担责任（第2条第4款b项）。

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 imposes a lower level of protection for trespassers. The occupier owes a duty if he is aware of the danger, knows that a trespasser might come into the vicinity, and the risk is one he may reasonably be expected to offer some protection against. The duty is to take reasonable care to see that the trespasser does not suffer injury from the danger. Warnings and risk acceptance by the trespasser are relevant.

《1984年占有人责任法》对侵入者提供较低水平的保护。如果占有人知道危险的存在，知道侵入者可能进入该区域，且该风险属于他理应提供某种保护的类型，则占有人负有义务。义务的内容是采取合理注意，确保侵入者不因该危险而遭受伤害。警告和侵入者自愿接受风险亦属相关因素。

---

10. Civil Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution | 民事法院与替代性争议解决

Civil cases are heard in the County Court (small claims, fast track, and multi-track cases up to certain values) and the High Court (King’s Bench Division, Chancery Division, Family Division). The track system allocates cases based on complexity and value. Appeals generally go from County Court to High Court and then to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The Supreme Court hears final appeals on points of law of general public importance.

民事案件由郡法院（小额诉讼、快速轨及多轨案件，金额在一定范围内）和高等法院（王座分庭、衡平分庭和家事分庭）审理。案件轨制根据复杂性和金额分配案件。上诉通常从郡法院到高等法院，再到上诉法院（民事庭）。最高法院审理具有普遍公共重要性的法律问题的终审上诉。

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provides methods of resolving disputes without going to court. Negotiation involves direct settlement discussions. Mediation involves a neutral third party helping parties reach a mutually acceptable solution. Conciliation is similar but the third party may propose a solution. Arbitration (Arbitration Act 1996) involves a binding decision by an arbitrator, selected by the parties. ADR is encouraged by the courts, particularly after the Woolf Reforms, and can be a cost-effective and private alternative to litigation.

替代性争议解决（ADR）提供不经过法庭解决争议的方法。协商是直接的和解讨论。调解由中立的第三方帮助当事人达成彼此接受的解决方案。调停与之类似，但第三方可以提出解决方案。仲裁（《1996年仲裁法》）由当事人选定的仲裁员作出有约束力的裁决。法院积极鼓励使用ADR，尤其是在伍尔夫改革之后，ADR可以成为一场高效经济且保密的诉讼替代途径。

---

11. Criminal Courts and Lay People | 刑事法院与非法律专业人士

Criminal offences are triable in three ways: summary offences (Magistrates’ Court only), indictable offences (Crown Court), and either-way offences (defendant or magistrates may choose). The Magistrates’ Court hears over 95% of criminal cases. Magistrates are lay volunteers, sitting in panels of three, advised by a legal adviser. They determine guilt and impose sentences up to 6 months’ custody. The Crown Court comprises a judge (circuit judge or recorder) and a jury for contested trials. The judge governs the law and procedure, while the jury decides facts and guilt.

刑事犯罪按照三种方式审判：简易罪行（仅治安法院审理）、可诉罪行（刑事法院审理）和可以选择审判模式的混合罪行（被告或治安法官可选择审判地点）。治安法院审理超过95%的刑事案件。治安法官是非专业的志愿者，由三人组成合议庭，由法律顾问提供协助。他们裁决是否有罪并可判处最高六个月的监禁。刑事法院由一名法官（巡回法官或记录法官）和陪审团组成，适用于抗辩式审判。法官掌控法律和程序，陪审团裁决事实和定罪问题。

Juries consist of 12 randomly selected adults (Juries Act 1974) who meet qualifications. The jury’s duty is to reach a unanimous or majority verdict (11–1 or 10–2) based solely on the evidence. Advantages of juries include public participation, fairness, and the protection against oppressive prosecutions. Disadvantages include lack of understanding in complex cases, secrecy of deliberations, and the potential for bias or improper conduct.

陪审团由符合资格的12名随机抽选的成年人组成（《1974年陪审团法》）。陪审团的职责是基于证据达成一致裁决或多数裁决（11比1或10比2）。陪审团的优点包括公众参与、体现公正、防止压迫性起诉。缺点包括对复杂案件理解有限、评议过程保密、以及可能存在偏见或不当行为。

---

12. Sentencing and Aims of Punishment | 量刑与刑罚目的

Courts have a range of sentencing options: custodial sentences (imprisonment), community orders (unpaid work, curfew, rehabilitation programmes), fines, and discharges (absolute or conditional). For adults, the maximum sentence varies by offence. The aims of sentencing under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 include punishment, deterrence (individual and general), reform and rehabilitation, protection of the public, and reparation.

法院有一系列量刑选项：监禁刑、社区令（无偿劳动、宵禁、改造项目）、罚金和释放（绝对释放或有条件释放）。成年人的最高刑罚因罪行而异。根据《2003年刑事司法法》，量刑的目的包括惩罚、威慑（个别和一般）、改造和更生、保护公众以及补偿。

Aggravating factors (previous convictions, vulnerable victim, use of a weapon) can increase severity, while mitigating factors (genuine remorse, early guilty plea, provocation) can reduce it. The Sentencing Council issues guidelines to promote consistency, though judges retain discretion within statutory limits.

加重因素（前科、被害人脆弱、使用武器）可提高量刑严重性，而减轻因素（真诚悔罪、及早认罪、被激怒）可降低刑期。量刑委员会发布指南以促进一致性，但法官在法定权限内保留自由裁量权。

Published by TutorHao | CCEA Law Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）