Case Description

One day, Yang Mou saw a wolf dog casually touching him at the door of his shop, and was insulted by the owner of the wolf dog, Peng Mou. The two men had an argument. Peng threatened to find someone to retaliate, and Yang immediately responded, "Then you come and fight.". A quarter of an hour later, Peng gathered three colleagues armed to the door of Yang's store, and the four immediately rushed up to surround Yang. Yang took out a sharp knife prepared in advance and stabbed Peng in the chest and abdomen, causing a fierce fight between the two sides. After forensic identification, Peng died of visceral rupture due to multiple knife wounds. The People's Procuratorate initiated a public prosecution against Yang for the crime of intentional injury. The court of first instance sentenced Yang to 13 years in prison for the crime of intentional injury, and the court of second instance sentenced Yang to 4 years in prison for constituting legitimate defense but overreaching in defense.

Lawyer Analysis

The reason why the court of first instance and second instance have so different judgments on Yang is mainly due to the difference in the determination of whether Yang's behavior has a defensive nature. The court of first instance held that Yang and Peng were aggressive and aggressive after a quarrel, forming a common intention to engage in a fight, with the intention of jointly harming others, which was not defensive in nature. The court of second instance held that Yang stabbed Peng and others with a knife, which belonged to stopping the ongoing illegal infringement. His behavior was defensive in nature, but his defensive behavior caused a person's death that significantly exceeded the necessary limit and caused significant damage, constituting excessive defense.
Defensive behavior and mutual fighting have apparent similarities, both manifested as participation in fighting. One of the criteria for distinguishing between the two is whether the behavior has a defensive nature. Defense behavior refers to the behavior that the perpetrator recognizes that a legitimate right is being infringed upon illegally and aims to stop the infringement and protect the legitimate right. "Mutual brawl" means that both parties attack each other with the intention of infringing upon each other. "If a defensive act, due to its defensive nature, causes harm to the unlawful aggressor, it is justifiable defense and shall not bear criminal responsibility.". However, if a defensive act significantly exceeds the necessary limit and causes significant damage, it shall be recognized as excessive defense in accordance with the law. In the case of mutual brawls, since the actors have no subjective defensive nature, their actions may not be considered justifiable defense. If casualties are caused to the other party during the fight, the crime of causing provocation and causing trouble, the crime of intentional injury, and other charges shall be established.

In addition to differences in the nature of conduct and the assumption of criminal responsibility, defensive acts and fights can also be mutually transformed in certain circumstances. Taking this case as an example, if Yang deliberately escalates the conflict between the two parties or enlists others to participate in a fight with verbal provocation when Peng returns to the scene armed, the two parties will fight each other. After the end of the mutual fight, Peng returned to beat Yang. If Yang retaliated and caused Peng's death, Yang's behavior should generally be considered a defensive act.

Therefore, if one party starts first and the means are obviously excessive, and the other party retaliates to protect their own safety, it is not an act of affray, but rather a act of self-defense, and it is also an act of self-help.