Lawyer's character

At the end of February, Shan Guangquan's case went to trial.

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

There were two female prosecutors sitting at the prosecutor's table. Sitting on it were three male judges with serious faces.

"...This court believes that the defendant Shan Guangquan discovered someone breaking into the orchard at night and trying to illegally invade his house. He immediately called the police to the village cadres and the public security agency. When he returned to his orchard, he saw the victim Yan Jianshun in his house. Before, he mistakenly thought that he was an illegal intruder. When he saw Yan Jianshun walking towards him, he suspected that he was going to attack him. In panic and fear, he stabbed the victim to death with a dagger.

Defendant Shan Guangquan's behavior violated Article 234 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. The criminal facts are clear and the evidence is reliable and sufficient. He should be held criminally responsible for the crime of intentional injury. According to the provisions of Article 176 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, if a public prosecution is instituted, please be sentenced in accordance with the law.

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

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

"I heard clearly that I was charged with intentional injury. I have no objection to the facts. I admit that I killed Yan Jianshun, but I did not mean to kill him. I recognized the wrong person. I thought he was the one who wanted to break into my house before. That person, I really didn't mean to kill him..." Shan Guangquan looked at the presiding judge pitifully with regret on his face, hoping that he would be noble and spare his sentence for a few years.

Next, the prosecutor will question the defendant about the facts of the case. Shan Guangquan confessed to the crime. Fang Yi then also asked the defendant questions with the permission of the presiding judge.

What followed was more than an hour of evidence and cross-examination in court.

…

“The facts of this case have been clearly investigated, the court investigation has ended, and now the court debate has begun. The court debate mainly revolves around the disputed facts that have not been certified by the court and the issue of how the law should be applied based on the facts.

The prosecutor will speak first. "After the presiding judge finished speaking, he looked at the defense table.

"Presiding judge, judge: ... the prosecutor believes that in this case, the defendant Shan Guangquan mistakenly identified the victim Yan Jianshun as the aggressor. Based on his misunderstanding of illegal infringement, he used a dagger to stab the victim in the chest, which ultimately caused the death of others. Serious consequences of death.

Although the defendant Shan Guangquan in this case did not have the intention to kill, he had the intention to injure others. His behavior constituted the crime of intentional injury. It is recommended that the defendant be sentenced to fifteen years in prison. complete. "The prosecutor's cold speech pierced Wu Caiying's heart in the gallery.

At this time, Wu Caiying clenched the fence in front of her with her hands in shock, her heart almost jumped out of her chest, and tears kept rolling in her eyes. The young man next to her bit his lips and frowned into a frown.

The defendant then defended himself. Shan Guangquan tried his best to defend himself, but he was at a loss for words and kept talking back and forth. He was finally stopped by the presiding judge.

"The defendant's defender expressed his defense opinion." The presiding judge looked at the defense table.

"Presiding Judge, Judge: The defender believes that in this case, the defendant Shan Guangquan's behavior was an imaginary defense and a crime of negligence. He should not be punished as an intentional crime and should constitute a crime of negligence causing death. The reasons are as follows:

1. The defendant Shan Guangquan in this case acted in imaginary defense.

In this case, the defendant Shan Guangquan’s orchard is outside the village and is located in a relatively remote location. Someone did try to illegally invade his house on the night of the incident. The defendant Shan Guangquan was extremely frightened and carried a dagger for self-defense.

When the defendant Shan Guangquan went out to seek help and returned, he saw the victim Yan Jianshun standing in front of his house in the orchard. Based on the fear that someone had illegally invaded his house before (antecedent), and the fact that it was cloudy and dark on the night of the crime, 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 approaching him, the defendant suspected that the victim was going to attack him, so he acted in "defense" and stabbed the victim in the chest with a dagger. The defendant's 'hypothesis' has its reasonable side.

The defendant's 'defensive' behavior in panic and fear fully conformed to the characteristics of imaginary defense. Therefore, the defender believed that the defendant's behavior should be recognized as imaginary defense behavior.

2. The defendant's imaginary defensive behavior is a crime of negligence.

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

Therefore, the defendant did not subjectively know that his behavior would cause social harm. The defendant Shan Guangquan had neither direct intention nor indirect intention.

Defendant Shan Guangquan's "imaginary defense" behavior resulted in the death of innocent people. Although objectively it had a certain degree of social harm, it was not established as a crime of intentional homicide or injury, but was only established as "should have foreseen that his behavior might cause harm." The social consequences are the crime of negligence causing death because of negligence and failure to foresee such results.

In summary, the defender believed that the defendant was guilty of negligent death. In view of the fact that the defendant confessed truthfully after being brought to justice, actively compensated the victim's family, and showed remorse, it was recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. complete. "After Fang Yi finished expressing his defense opinions, he looked at the presiding judge.

"The prosecutor can respond to the defender's defense opinions," the presiding judge said.

"Regarding the defense of the defendant, the prosecutor believes that the defendant Shan Guangquan took the initiative to stab the victim with a dagger at the time of the crime, resulting in his death. It can be seen that the defendant used the dagger based on intentional psychology at the time of the crime, with the purpose of stabbing the victim. Therefore, the defendant's behavior was intentional and should be classified as intentional injury. Over." the prosecutor retorted.

"The defender can respond to the prosecutor's opinions." After the presiding judge stopped writing, he looked at the defense table.

“In response to the prosecutor’s defense opinions and response, the defender issued the following defense opinions:

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

According to Article 14 of the Criminal Law, an intentional crime means that the perpetrator knows that his behavior will have consequences that are harmful to society, and he hopes or allows such consequences to occur.

Imaginary defense is based on the perpetrator's misunderstanding that his behavior is not harmful to society.

Although the perpetrator of imaginary defense is mentally intentional, this intentionality is based on a misunderstanding of the objective facts (whether there is illegal infringement).

In this case, the defendant believed that he was exercising legitimate defense against illegal infringement. Not only did he not realize that his behavior would have consequences that would harm society, he also believed that his behavior was legal and justifiable.

The "intentional" in criminal offenses is based on the premise that the perpetrator knows that his behavior will have consequences that are harmful to society.

To sum up, the defender believes that the ‘intentional’ in imaginary defense only has a psychological meaning, rather than 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. The death of the victim was due to the defendant's misunderstanding. The defendant had no subjective intention to commit a crime. Therefore, it was impossible to commit a crime intentionally in the imaginary defense, and it should be a crime of negligence. complete. "In terms of legal theory, Fang Yi is still very confident.