Lawyer

Chapter 579 Intentional Injury?
At the end of February, Shan Guangquan's case started.

In the Fifth Court of the Intermediate Court, there were only Wu Caiying and a young man in the auditorium. Fang Yi speculated that the young man was her son.

Sitting on the public prosecutor's bench were two female prosecutors.On it sat three male judges with sinking faces.

"...This court believes that the defendant, Shan Guangquan, found someone breaking into the orchard at night and attempted to break into his house illegally, so he immediately reported to the village cadres and public security organs. When he returned to his orchard, he saw the victim Yan Jianshun in his house. Before that, he mistakenly thought that he was an unlawful intruder, saw Yan Jianshun walking towards him, and suspected that he was going to attack him, so in panic and fear, he stabbed the victim to death with a dagger.

The behavior of the defendant Shan Guangquan violated Article 230 of the "Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China". The facts of the crime are clear and the evidence is reliable and sufficient. He should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of intentional injury.According to the provisions of Article 170 of the "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", if a public prosecution is filed, please sentence it according to law.

Presiding judge, the indictment has been read out. After the prosecutor put down the indictment, he looked at the three judges sitting on it.

"Defendant Shan Guangquan, did you hear clearly the indictment read out by the public prosecutor just now? What crime is charged against you? Do you have any objection to the criminal facts charged in the indictment?" After the presiding judge asked, he looked at the defendant sitting Shan Guangquan looked anxious at the table.

"I heard it clearly. I was accused of intentional injury. I have no objection to the facts. I admit that I killed Yan Jianshun, but I didn't mean to kill him. I recognized the wrong person. I thought he just wanted to break into my house. I really didn't intend to kill him..." Shan Guangquan looked at the presiding judge pitifully with regret all over his face, hoping that he would do his best and save him a few years of sentence.

The prosecutor then questioned the accused about the facts of the case.Shan Guangquan confessed to the crime.Fang Yi then, with the presiding judge's permission, also questioned the defendant.

More than an hour of cross-examination in court followed.

……

"The facts of this case have been investigated clearly, the court investigation is over, and the court debate is now beginning. The court debate mainly revolves around the disputed facts that have not been certified by the court and how to apply the law based on the facts.

Let the prosecutor speak first. "After the presiding judge finished speaking, he looked at the defense seat.

"The presiding judge and the judge: ... the public prosecutor believes that in this case, the defendant Shan Guangquan mistakenly identified the victim Yan Jianshun as the infringer, and stabbed the victim's chest with a dagger based on his misunderstanding of the illegal infringement, which eventually caused others serious consequences of death.

Although Shan Guangquan, the defendant in this case, had no intention to kill, he had the intention to injure others, and his behavior constituted the crime of intentional injury.It is recommended that the defendant be sentenced to 15 years in prison.complete. "The procurator's cold speech directly poked Wu Caiying's heart in the auditorium.

At this time, Wu Caiying clutched the fence in front of her with both hands in shock, her heart almost jumped out, and tears rolled in her eyes.The young man beside her bit her lips tightly, frowning into a gada.

Afterwards, the defendant defended himself, and Shan Guangquan tried his best to defend himself, but he was at a loss for words, and Che Gunlun talked back and forth, and was finally stopped by the presiding judge.

"The defendant's defender made his defense opinion." The presiding judge looked at the defense seat.

"The presiding judge and the judge: the defender believes that in this case, the behavior of the defendant Shan Guangquan is a false defense, a negligent crime, should not be punished as an intentional crime, and should constitute the crime of negligent death. The reasons are as follows:

[-]. Shan Guangquan, the defendant in this case, is a hypothetical defense.

In this case, the orchard of the defendant Shan Guangquan is outside the village, and the geographical location is relatively remote. On the night of the incident, someone did intend to break into his house illegally. The defendant Shan Guangquan carried a dagger on his body for self-defense in a state of extreme fear.

When the defendant Shan Guangquan went out to ask for help and returned, he saw the victim Yan Jianshun standing in front of his house in the orchard.Based on the panic (antecedent cause) caused by someone illegally intruding into his house before, coupled with the fact that the night of the incident was cloudy, the night was dark, visibility was not high, and he could not recognize the person, the defendant Shan Guangquan mistakenly believed that the victim was an illegal intruder.

Seeing the victim walking towards him, the defendant suspected that the other party was going to attack him, so he acted as a 'defense' and stabbed the other party's chest with a dagger.The defendant's 'hypothesis' has its reasonable side.

The defendant's "defense" behavior in panic and fear fully conforms to the characteristics of imaginary defense. Therefore, the defender believes that the defendant's behavior should be identified as an imaginary defensive behavior.

[-]. The defendant's imaginary defensive behavior is a crime of negligence.

In this case, the behavior of the defendant Shan Guangquan was entirely based on the misunderstanding of "fake defense", and his original intention was to protect the personal safety and property rights of himself and his family.

Therefore, subjectively, the defendant did not know that his actions would cause social harm at all, and defendant Shan Guangquan subjectively had neither direct intention nor indirect intention.

Defendant Shan Guangquan's "imaginary defense" behavior resulted in the death of others innocently. Although objectively, there was a certain degree of social harm, the crime of intentional homicide or injury was not established. The consequences of society are not foreseen due to negligence, so that the crime of 'negligent death' occurs.

In summary, the defender believed that the defendant constituted the crime of negligent death. Since the defendant truthfully confessed after being brought to justice, and actively compensated the victim's family, he did show remorse, and suggested that he should be sentenced to three years in prison.complete. After Fang Yi delivered his defense opinion, he looked at the presiding judge.

"The public prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinion." The presiding judge said.

"As for the defender's defense, the public prosecutor believes that at the time of the case, the defendant Shan Guangquan actively used a dagger to stab the victim, resulting in his death. It can be seen that the defendant used the dagger intentionally at the time of the case, and its purpose was to stab the victim. Therefore, the defendant's behavior was intentional and should be charged as a crime of intentional injury. Over." The prosecutor retorted.

"The defender can respond to the public prosecutor's opinion." After the presiding judge stopped the pen in his hand, he looked at the defense seat.

"Responding to the public prosecutor's defense opinion and response, the defender issued the following defense opinion:

The defender believes that the "intentional" in the criminal law theory should not be equated with or confused with the "intentional" in the psychological theory.

According to Article No. 14 of the "Criminal Law", an intentional crime means that the perpetrator knows that his behavior will cause harmful results to society, and hopes or allows such results to happen.

The imaginary defense is based on the perpetrator's misconception that his behavior is not socially harmful.

Although the perpetrator of the hypothetical defense has intentionality psychologically, this intention is based on a misunderstanding of objective facts (whether there is an illegal infringement).

In this case, the defendant thought that he was justifiably defending against the illegal infringement. Not only did he fail to realize that his behavior would have harmful consequences to society, but he also believed that his behavior was legal and just.

The "intentional" in criminal offenses is based on the premise that the perpetrator knows that his behavior will endanger the society.

To sum up, the defender believes that the "intention" in the imaginary defense only has a psychological meaning, not criminal intention in criminal law.

The defendant in this case implemented imaginary defense, subjectively to protect the personal safety and property rights of himself and his family, and the death of the victim was caused by the defendant's misunderstanding.Subjectively, the defendant did not have the intention to commit a crime. Therefore, it is impossible to commit an intentional crime in the hypothetical defense, and it should be a negligent crime.complete. "In terms of legal theory, Fang Yi is still very confident.

(End of this chapter)