Latest: Court issues notice on "Lijiang college student sentenced for causing serious injury while defending himself against mob attack by over 10 people"
From the "Yu Huan case" to the "Kunshan counter-killing case," in recent years, many media outlets have seized on public sensitivity toward "justifiable defense" incidents to sensationalize them, which is both a blessing and a concern. Recently, the case of "a university student in Lijiang who was sentenced for causing serious injury while resisting an assault by over 10 people" has sparked frequent heated discussions, once again pushing "justifiable defense" into the spotlight of public opinion.
Event review:
According to relevant media reports, at around 1 a.m. on November 19, 2018, Cheng Zhaodong, a 22-year-old junior at a university in Lijiang, walked out of a restaurant in the Old Town District of Lijiang, and more than 10 men also came out one after another and surrounded him. During the conflict, Cheng Zhaodong, who had fallen to the ground, grabbed whatever tools he could find to resist, ultimately injuring 5 men, 2 of them seriously. Cheng Zhaodong then fled the scene. After daybreak, Cheng Zhaodong was captured by police and later prosecuted for intentional injury.
On October 14, 2019, the Gucheng District Court of Lijiang City issued a first-instance judgment, convicting Cheng Zhaodong of intentional injury, sentencing him to three years of fixed-term imprisonment with a four-year suspension, and ordering him to pay a total of 27 yuan in compensation to the victims. After the pronouncement of the judgment, the original defendant Cheng Zhaodong and the original plaintiffs in the incidental civil action, Wang Yukuan and Dai Qian, were dissatisfied and filed appeals.
The Intermediate People's Court of Lijiang City reported on the 10th that after accepting the case on October 30, the court notified the Lijiang Municipal People's Court, the defense counsel for appellant Cheng Zhaodong, and the litigation agents for appellants Wang Yukuan and Dai Qian to review the case files. In accordance with the law, it interrogated Cheng Zhaodong and questioned Wang Yukuan and Dai Qian, and convened a pre-trial conference on December 9.
Currently, the second-instance trial is ongoing. The court will strictly handle the case fairly according to law, and the trial results will be promptly announced to the public.
On the determination of justifiable defense
A lawyer from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm stated,
Justifiable defense is divided into special defense and general defense.
Special defense refers to defensive actions taken by a citizen against ongoing violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, and other serious violent offenses endangering personal safety, where causing injury or death to the unlawful infringer does not constitute excessive defense and incurs no criminal liability.
General defense refers to actions taken to stop ongoing unlawful infringement in order to protect the state, public interests, one's own or another's person, property, or other rights, where causing harm to the unlawful infringer constitutes justifiable defense and incurs no criminal liability.
The biggest difference between the two is that special defense does not involve the issue of excessive defense, whereas in the process of general defense, if the action clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes significant harm, it is excessive defense and incurs criminal liability.
China's self-defense system must target ongoing unlawful infringement, whereas in a "mutual assault," both parties possess the intent and engage in acts of attacking and infringing upon each other, thereby violating each other's rights and interests. Therefore, it does not meet the constitutive requirements of self-defense.
Of course, it cannot be generalized. If one party in a fight stops attacking, begs for mercy, or flees, and the other party continues to assault, then the party that stopped attacking can exercise legitimate self-defense.
Many details of the Cheng Zhaodong case are unknown to us. The positions of media workers and court judges inevitably lead to differences in their determination of the facts, so it is difficult to draw a conclusion now. The onlookers should first calm down.
