"In response to the defender's defense, the prosecutor expressed the following opinions:

1. The brawl between the defendant and the victim is a mutual assault.

After the defendant Tan Peicai learned that Qin Leiming was going to find someone to get him, he should have reported to the company leaders or the public security organ to calm the situation, or back down and recused himself, but Tan Peicai not only did not report, but actively prepared tools, indicating that he was not afraid of threats and had a "reckless" mentality - 'if you dare to find someone to get me, I will get you', and it should be presumed that he subjectively had the intention to fight, so the nature of his counterattack was to fight each other rather than defense.

2. Defendant Tan Peicai did not suffer an ongoing unlawful infringement.

Tan Peicai's slapping in the mouth was a slight injury, and the harm to his personal safety was not major or imminent, and it was not an 'ongoing unlawful infringement', and he could have called for help or fled from the surrounding crowd, but he immediately took out a switchblade prepared in advance and stabbed the other party, causing serious injuries to the victim, and his conduct was 'prior defense' and was not defensive in nature.

In summary, the defendant's conduct did not constitute legitimate defense, nor did it constitute excessive defense. Complete. The inspector responded.

"The defender may respond to the prosecutor's opinion." The presiding judge said.

"Based on the prosecutor's defense and response, the defense issued the following defense opinions:

1. When the defendant Tan Peicai was physically threatened, he carried a switchblade with him, not for the purpose of beating each other, but for self-defense.

The prosecutor argued that 'the defendant did not report to the unit leader or the public security organ, but instead prepared tools in advance to explain that he subjectively had the intention to fight', and the defender believed that the prosecutor's above-mentioned opinion was biased.

First, after the defendant Tan Peicai's personal safety was threatened (Qin Leiming claimed that he wanted to find someone to get him), but before he was actually endangered, his act of preparing the switchblade could not be explained as whether it was for defense or for fighting, and his purpose could only be determined on the basis of relevant facts and evidence, and could not be arbitrarily speculated.

According to the confession of the defendant in this case, Tan Peicai, he prepared the switchblade for defense, and if Qin Leiming did not find someone to get him, he would not take the initiative to find something to deal with Qin Leiming.

According to the evidence in the case, it can be seen that after Tan Peicai learned that Qin Leiming threatened to find someone to get him, he did not look for anyone and was ready to fight with Qin Leiming and his gang, and he did not know how many people Qin Leiming would call, and at what time and where he would get (beat) him.

In order to deal with the real threat and to prevent contingencies, the defendant prepared defensive tools in advance and carried a switchblade with him, which is not sufficient to show that Tan Peicai had the intention to fight or brawl with the other party.

According to the evidence provided by the prosecutor, Tan Peicai was stopped by the victim's gang on his way to work and dragged into the grove to beat him before he fought back, and the defendant stabbed the victim and fled. The defendant did not take the initiative to attack, nor did he fight back continuously.

It can be seen from this that the purpose of the defendant's preparation of the tools was for defense, not for fighting. Neither the available facts nor evidence in this case can show that Tan Peicai prepared the tools in advance for the purpose of fighting with the victim and others.

Second, public remedies are limited after all, and even if the defendant reports to the company's leaders or the public security organs in advance, it is difficult to obtain effective protection.

In this case, the threat to the defendant Tan Peicai was not certain and significant, and the time and place of the other party's retaliation were uncertain. If the defendant is not beaten, the public security organs may not be able to help.

In order to more effectively protect the lives and property of citizens, the Criminal Code provides for a system of legitimate defence. Since the law gives citizens the right to legitimate self-defense, they should be allowed to make the necessary defensive preparations when their personal safety is threatened.

The public prosecution held that when the defendant's personal safety was threatened, he could only report to the head of the unit or the public security organ, and could not make defensive preparations, and when he was illegally infringed, he could only call for help or flee, and only when the call for help or escape was ineffective could he take local materials or seize the opponent's tools for defense.

From the above, it can be seen that the defendant in this case, Tan Peicai, prepared defensive tools after his personal safety was threatened and before he was endangered, which was not improper, and his conduct was not prohibited by law.

Third, in terms of value orientation, the criminal law should promote justice, punish evil and promote good.

In the face of the malicious provocation of Qin Leiming and others, the defendant Tan Peicai prepared defensive tools in advance to prevent accidents, which was a natural reaction, and there should be no excessive demands and restrictions on this.

Therefore, even if it is difficult to define whether the defendant in this case Tan Peicai prepared the switchblade for defense or for the purpose of fighting, a presumption in favor of the defendant Tan Peicai should be made, and only in this way can the original intent of the criminal law be complied with to eliminate evil and promote good.

To sum up, the defense believes that the purpose of preparing the switchblade in advance by the defendant in this case, Tan Peicai, is for defense, not for the purpose of fighting.

2. The term 'ongoing unlawful offense' as defined in Article 20 of the Criminal Law does not require a level of gravity to be exercised in order to be defended.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 20 of the Criminal Law stipulate that an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement in order to protect the State, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of the person or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement shall be justified self-defense, and where the justifiable defense clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes major harm, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but punishment shall be mitigated or waived.

'Unlawful infringement' in the above provisions refers to acts that unlawfully endanger the person, property and other legitimate rights and interests of others.

The intensity of the ongoing unlawful offense suffered by the perpetrator of justifiable defence is not a prerequisite for the possibility of justifiable defence, but only a limit for justifiable defence.

The premise of justifiable defense is that there is an 'ongoing unlawful offense', and that the victim can immediately take defensive action to stop the unlawful offense, regardless of the severity, as long as the ongoing unlawful offense is suffered.

The so-called "beforehand" in the "prior defense" mentioned by the prosecutor refers to the fact that the unlawful infringement has not yet begun and begun. The defender has the right to act in defence against an unlawful offense that has already begun and is ongoing, even if the degree is quite minor, and this is not a case of so-called 'prior defence'.

In this case, the victim Wei Runquan ganged up with others to surround Tan Peicai with weapons, and his act of hitting Tan Peicai in the mouth showed that his unlawful infringement of Tan Peicai had begun and was ongoing, and although the victim's conduct was relatively minor, judging from the circumstances at the time of the incident, the available evidence could not prove that the victim would stop and not use more brutal means. Speaking of this, Fang Yi paused, swallowed his saliva, and moistened his thirsty throat.

On the side, Yun Qiao, who didn't say a word, felt extremely angry in his heart: Could it be that the beaten person can only be a little sheep? You can only wait for the relief of the public security organs, and you can't resist self-defense?! What is the meaning of justifiable defense stipulated in the Criminal Law, how can talking be no more than a brain, come out in the morning without taking medicine!

(End of chapter)