"Presiding Judge and Adjudicator: Based on the procurator's defense opinions and responses, the defender issues the following defense opinions:

The appellant, Lu Chen, carried a knife in advance and made defensive preparations when he was aware of the possibility of being infringed upon by Hong Fangzhou. Appellant Lu Chen only had the intention of defending, but did not have the intention of harming others, and his act of carrying a preventive tool in advance and using the tool to defend himself in the event of an unlawful infringement was still justified in self-defense. The specific reasons are as follows:

1. Appellant Lu Chen carried knives for the purpose of self-defense.

Article 20 of the Criminal Law stipulates: 'Any act taken to stop an unlawful infringement in order to protect the State, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement and causes damage to the wrongdoer shall be regarded as justified self-defense and shall not bear criminal responsibility." ’

The purpose of justifiable defense under the Criminal Law is to resist unlawful infringement and protect legitimate rights and interests. In this case, the appellant Lu Chen, after a friction with others in a bar, returned to the car to carry a knife to defend himself in order to prevent the other party from retaliating, which is a precautionary measure, in order to prevent his lawful rights and interests from being illegally infringed, the perpetrator made preventive preparations before the infringement occurred, and took necessary preventive measures in advance, and its purpose was also to defend himself.

However, this preventive measure is not aimed at an 'ongoing unlawful offense', but rather a 'possible unlawful offense', which is not exactly the same as the conditions for justifiable defense under the criminal law, but its purpose is still to defend itself.

At the material time, the appellant used a switchblade to fight back against the unlawful assault, and his conduct and results showed that the purpose of carrying the knife was to defend against the unlawful aggression and not to target a specific person. Therefore, the defensive nature of the appellant's conduct cannot be denied because he was illegally carrying a controlled knife.

Therefore, in this case, the appellant Lu Chen carried a preventive knife to prevent the occurrence of unlawful infringement, and could not prevent him from using the knife to carry out a defensive act when encountering unlawful infringement.

As long as there is no obvious imbalance between the damage caused by his conduct to the wrongdoer and the value of the lawful rights and interests he protects, and the effect of the defense is directed against the ongoing unlawful infringement, it should be found to be justified defense.

2. There is no mutual assault between the appellant Lu Chen and the victim Zou Minglong.

According to the defender, the key to justifiable defense and mutual assault lies in whether there is defensive intent. Defensive intent is also known as 'defensive purpose', that is, the purpose of the defender's subjective defense. The intent of self-defense in justifiable defence is to protect the public interest, the person or other rights of oneself or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement.

In a mutual fight, where both parties to the brawl have the intent to harm the other party, and both parties have the purpose of infringing on the other party, and actively carry out acts of aggression against the other party under the control of this intention, there is no defensive intent required for legitimate defense.

In practice, acts of mutual assault are generally premeditated, and the perpetrators are relatively clear about the time, place, and counterpart of the mutual assault, have relatively specific plans, and often make full preparations for them, and are likely to carry the murder weapons required for the mutual assault.

However, legitimate defensive acts are generally sudden, and when the infringement occurs suddenly, the perpetrator is often not aware of the time, place, and counterpart of the infringement in advance, and is compelled to take measures to resist or counterattack in order to protect their lawful rights and interests.

Returning to this case, after the appellant Lu Chen had a conflict with Hong Fangzhou at the bar, he went to the car to get the knife and returned to the bar again, but he did not take the initiative to harm Hong Fangzhou, nor did he tell his friends present that he had a conflict with Hong Fangzhou, so it can be seen that his subjective purpose of taking the knife was consistent with what he said, and he was aware of Hong Fangzhou's possible infringement of his own defense, and he subjectively did not have the intention of illegally infringing on others, and he did not know in advance about the events that occurred thereafter, so the defendant's conduct was not a mutual assault.

At the instigation of Hong Fangzhou, the victim Zou Minglong and others followed to the door of the restaurant, saw Lu Chen and others getting out of the car, and immediately beat Lu Chen and others, and immediately knocked one of them to the ground, and then beat Lu Chen and others, and Zou Minglong and others' conduct was an unlawful infringement on the health of citizens.

When Lu Chen used the switchblade he was carrying to defend himself, Zou Minglong was beating him, and his accomplices were beating Lu Chen's friend, and at this moment, the illegal infringement was underway.

Zou Minglong's fatal wound was a knife wound, which was caused by Lu Chen in the process of defense. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Law, the defendant's conduct in this case constituted legitimate defense.

However, when Zou Minglong beat Lu Chen, he did not hold a murder weapon, but carried out it with his bare hands, but Lu Chen stabbed Zou Minglong several times with a switchblade, and continued to chase and kick Zou Minglong when Zou Minglong stopped the infringement and fled with injuries, his behavior clearly exceeded the necessary limit required to stop the illegal infringement, and ultimately directly caused the serious consequences of Zou Minglong's death.

Therefore, Lu Chen's conduct should be excessive defense, and in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law, it constitutes the crime of intentional injury, but the punishment should be reduced. The court of first instance sentenced him to 15 years in prison, which was obviously excessive, and requested the court to change the sentence in accordance with law. Complete! Fang Yi said.

……

After two rounds of court defense, the presiding judge announced a 10-minute adjournment to announce the verdict after deliberation by the collegial panel.

Fang Yi took out the mineral water in his briefcase, drank a few big sips, and then sat down on the chair and didn't want to speak, didn't want to move, and his brain was in a state of disconnection.

The people in the auditorium watched Fang Yi sitting on the defense bench and expressing his opinions with fierce words, which didn't seem to be very difficult, but how did they know how much information Fang Yi had checked before the trial, how many versions of the defense opinions had been revised, and how could they know that during the trial, Fang Yi's brain was constantly spinning rapidly, responding to the prosecutor's accusations. When the presiding judge knocked down the gavel that adjourned the courtroom, Fang Yi felt relieved, and fatigue immediately came up.

Ten minutes flashed by, and the three judges of the collegial panel walked into the courtroom, and the presiding judge said: "Now continue the trial, and ask the bailiff to take the appellant Lu Chen to the courtroom."

The collegial panel has deliberated and formed a verdict in this case. In response to the opinions of the prosecution and defense, combined with the focus of the dispute in this case, and based on the facts and evidence of this case, this court makes the following comments:

…… Appellant Lu Chen's act of intentionally injuring the body of the unlawful aggressor in order to stop the ongoing unlawful infringement was justified defense, but his defense clearly exceeded the necessary limit, causing major damage to the victim's death, and his conduct constituted the crime of intentional injury and should be mitigated in accordance with law.

Lu Chen and his defender's argument that Lu Chen's conduct was excessive defense, and the original judgment's grounds for appeal and defense opinions on his sentencing were too heavy and were adopted.

Accordingly, in accordance with Article 189 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 234, Paragraph 2, Article 20, Paragraph 2, and Article 61 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: 1. Revoke the criminal judgment of the Municipal Intermediate People's Court; 2. Appellant Lu Chen committed the crime of intentional injury and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. ”

(End of chapter)