[case]
Private prosecutor and plaintiff in incidental civil action: Lu.
Defendant: Lu A.
Defendant: Lu B.
Defendant in incidental civil action: Liu A.
Defendant in incidental civil action: Liu B.
Defendant in incidental civil action: Lu C.
There was a dispute between Lu, the plaintiff in the private prosecutor and incidental civil action, Lu A, the defendant in the incidental civil action, and Liu A, Liu B, Lu C, the defendants in the incidental civil action, in order to cut firewood on April 12, 2001. On the morning of the same day, Lu saw Lu A, Liu A, Liu B and Lu C cutting firewood in a mountain forest in Zhendong Village, Town A, Jiaxian County, and blocked it with its own management. Lu, holding one long and one short shotgun, fired two shots at the place where Lu An and others cut firewood. Lu A, Liu A, Liu B and Lu C all stopped cutting when they heard the gunshot. They made an appointment to a primary school in East Village to call the police of A County Public Security Bureau and A Town Public Security Police Station, and put forward a request to Yang, team leader of Group 5 in East Village. Yang rushed to Lu's house at noon on the same day and advised Lu not to hurt people with a shotgun. Lu replied that he did not want Yang to take care of the matter, and threatened to kill Lu An in front of Yang. That afternoon, Lu went to a place in the East Village with a long shotgun to stop Lu A, Liu A, Liu B and Lu C from chopping firewood. When Lu was less than 3 meters away from Lu A, Lu pointed his gun at Lu A's chest. Lu A jumped at the situation, grabbed the barrel of the gun and pushed aside. When Lu pulled the trigger, the ammunition was fired into the sky. Lu A scuffled with Lu while snatching the shotgun, causing both sides to roll into the paddy field under the mountain forest. Liu A, Liu B and Lu C came forward to help Lu A seize the shotgun in Lu's hand. After the defendant Lu B came from home, together with Lu A, Liu A, Liu B, and Lu C, Lu tied Lu's feet with a rope to prevent Lu from killing with a shotgun. After that, Lu An and others carried Lu to the shade and took turns to a local primary school to call the police at the A town public security police station. About 30 minutes later, the police of A Town Public Security Police Station arrived at the scene. Lu An and others untied Lu and handed over the seized shotguns to the police station for handling. Subsequently, the police of the A town public security police station seized shotgun gunpowder and bullets in the Lu family. Forensic identification showed that the visual acuity of Lu's left eye decreased, and the degree of injury was a slight injury. Lu was hospitalized in A Town Health Center for 18 days and spent 568.45 yuan on medical expenses.
[trial]
The case was filed by Lu to the people's Court of A County of B Province.
The private prosecutor Lu complained that on the morning of April 12, 2001, the defendant Lu B instructed his son Lu An and his brother Liu A to invite Liu B and Lu C to a certain place in this village to cut down the mountain forest I managed. In order to stop them from damaging my mountains, I fired a few shots into the sky with unloaded earthen. Lu A, Liu A, Liu B and Lu C stopped cutting. In the afternoon, when I learned that Lu A, Liu A, Liu B and Lu C were cutting firewood in the mountain forest I managed, I shot them in the same way in the morning. However, instead of being frightened, Lu An and others hugged me down in the mud, tied my hands with a rope and kicked me. The defendant Lu An also scratched my left eye with his hand. I was beaten by Lu A, Lu B and others with blood all over my face and unconscious. It took me more than two hours to be rescued by the officers and policemen of the A town public security police station. On the same day, I was sent to A Town Health Center for emergency treatment, and successively spent 801.4 yuan on medical expenses. The medical examiner identified me as a minor injury. The actions of the defendants Lu An and Lu B violated paragraph 1 of Article 234 and paragraph 1 of Article 238 of the Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China and constituted a crime. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 170 of the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, the defendant Lu An and Lu B were asked to be investigated for criminal responsibility for illegal detention and intentional injury. Please order the defendants Lu An and Lu B, and the defendants Liu A, Liu B and Lu C in the incidental civil action to compensate me for 4203 90 yuan and 3000 yuan for mental loss.
The defendant Lu An argued that on April 12, 2001, when Liu A, Liu B, Lu C and I were cutting firewood on a collectively owned public mountain in a certain village in our village, we were repeatedly shot by the private prosecutor Lu with one long and one short shotgun. At more than two o'clock in the afternoon, when Lu pointed a long shotgun at me at close range and pulled the trigger, I put down my axe and sickle with which I was chopping wood, rushed up with my bare hands, grabbed the barrel of the gun, and pushed the muzzle of the gun into the sky to prevent the ammunition from hitting my body at the sound of the gun. With the help of Liu A, Liu B, Lu C and Lu B, I tied Lu's hands and feet with ropes before I was able to seize his murder weapon. About half an hour later, the officers and policemen of the A town public security police station received our call and rushed to the scene. We handed over Lu and the seized shotgun to the police for handling. In the process of seizing guns and tying up Lu, both Lu and I were physically injured. My behavior is self-defense and does not constitute the crime of illegal detention and intentional injury, so I should not be punished, nor should I bear civil liability for compensation. His defender believes that the act of restricting Lu's personal freedom and seizing his gun should be recognized as justifiable defense against the private prosecutor Lu's ongoing crime of deliberately losing his personal freedom and seizing his gun. The behavior of the defendant Lu An and others is not inappropriate. Even if the nature of justifiable defense is excluded and the premise of continuous close-range shooting with a gun is abandoned, the behavior of Lu An and others does not constitute the crime of illegal detention and intentional injury charged by the private prosecutor Lu. The reasons are: first, Lu was tied up for a short time, and there were no beatings, insults and other words and deeds after binding, and the circumstances were significantly minor and the harm was not great; second, the decline of Lu's eyesight was not true, and there was no factual basis for the forensic identification of minor injuries to his left eye, and it was inconsistent with Lu's actions and light environment when he read out the materials during the trial. Therefore, request the court to pronounce the defendant Lu An innocent in accordance with the law, and request a decree to reject the incidental civil compensation claim filed by the private prosecutor Lu.
The defendant Lu B argued: I have never sent Lu A, Liu An and others to cut firewood somewhere in this village. On the afternoon of April 12, 2001, I heard that Lu rushed to a certain place when he shot Lu An and others with a gun. When he saw Lu A snatch the gun in Lu's hand, he helped Lu A, Liu A, Liu B and Lu C bind Lu with a rope and seized the shotgun held and used by Lu. My actions are just and legal and do not constitute a crime. Request the court to dismiss the unreasonable accusation made by the private prosecutor Lu.
Liu A, the defendant in the incidental civil action, argued: on April 12, 2001, Lu A, Liu B, Lu C and I went to the Gongshan somewhere in our village to cut firewood, but Lu forbade us to cut wood. When he shot us with an unlicensed shotgun, we tied his hands and feet with a rope without beating him. Our actions are self-defense, and we should not compensate Lu for his economic losses in accordance with the law.
Liu B, the defendant in the incidental civil lawsuit, argued: on April 12, 2001, when Lu A, Liu A, Lu C and I were cutting firewood in a public mountain forest somewhere in our village, Lu fired at us with a shotgun, and we bound Lu with a rope and seized his murder weapon. My behavior is self-defense and should not bear the responsibility of compensating Lu for the so-called economic losses.
Lu C, the defendant in the incidental civil lawsuit, argued: on April 12, 2001, Lu An and others went to the village to cut firewood in the public mountain where the immigrants had been collectively recovered. Lu openly beat us with a shotgun many times on the grounds that the mountain forest belonged to him. in this way, we tied him up with a rope and handed him over to the public security police station for handling. My behavior belongs to the legitimate defense prescribed by law, and I should not compensate Lu for his economic loss in accordance with the law. I request the court to reject Lu's claim.
After a public trial, the people's Court of A County of B Province held that Lu, the private prosecutor and plaintiff in the incidental civil action, unexpectedly shot the defendant Lu A with a shotgun and the defendants Liu A, Liu B, and Lu C in the incidental civil action because of the mountain dispute, and his behavior was illegal and criminal. The defendants Lu An and Lu B, and the defendants Liu A, Liu B, and Lu C in the incidental civil action came forward to stop Lu A when he shot at Lu A, restricted his personal freedom and seized his gun, which was self-defense. Moreover, the defense of the defendant Lu An and others did not exceed the necessary limit. The accusation and claim for compensation of Lu, the plaintiff in the private prosecutor and incidental civil action, cannot be established and shall not be supported in accordance with the law. The excuses stated by the defendant Lu An and his defender, the defendant Lu B, and the defendants Liu A, Liu B and Lu C in the incidental civil action are in line with the objective facts of the case and the provisions of national law, and should be adopted. In accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China, item (2) of Article 162 of the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, and Article 128 of the General principles of the Civil Law of the people's Republic of China, on September 14, 2001, a criminal incidental civil judgment was made as follows:
The defendant Lu An and the defendant Lu B are not guilty.
Second, the defendant Lu A, the defendant Lu B, the defendant Liu An in the incidental civil action, the defendant Liu B in the incidental civil action and the defendant Lu C in the incidental civil action shall not bear civil compensation liability.
After the verdict was pronounced, the plaintiff in the incidental civil action, Lu, refused to accept the judgment and filed an appeal on the grounds that the original judgment confused right and wrong, distorted the facts, and reversed the black and white. The court of second instance requested the defendant Lu An and Lu B to be convicted and punished for unlawful detention and intentional injury, and ordered Lu A, Lu B, Liu A, Liu B, Lu C to pay for all the losses he claimed. Defendants Lu An and Lu B, defendants Liu A, Liu B, and Lu C in incidental civil actions argued that the facts were clearly determined in the original judgment, the evidence was true and sufficient, and complied with the provisions of the law, and requested the court of second instance to dismiss Lu's appeal and uphold the decision of the court of first instance.
After the second trial, the Intermediate people's Court of C City of B Province held that the appellant Lu Mou shot Lu A, the defendant in the original trial with a shotgun, and Liu A, Liu B, and Lu C, the defendants in the original trial incidental civil action, because of the mountain dispute. The original trial defendants Lu A, Lu B and the original trial incidental civil action defendants Liu A, Liu B, and Lu C came forward to stop Lu A when he fired at Lu A, restricted their personal freedom and seized their guns, which was self-defense. The civil judgment attached to the criminal case made by the people's court of the original trial according to the facts, nature and circumstances of the case is qualitatively accurate, the application of the law is correct and is not improper, and the appeal of the appellant cannot be established on the grounds that the court will not support it. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 189 (1) of the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, the court made the following criminal incidental civil ruling on November 28, 2001:
The appeal was dismissed and the verdict was upheld.
[comment]
The focus of this case is whether the actions of the defendants Lu A and others are justifiable defense. According to the provisions of Article 20, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, any act taken to stop unlawful infringement in order to protect the country, public interests, and the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing unlawful infringement, if it causes damage to the offender, it belongs to legitimate defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. The private prosecutor Lu occupied the collectively owned mountain forest of Ducun and prevented others from going up the mountain to chop firewood. He repeatedly held shotguns (one long and one short) and opened fire in the mountain forest where the defendant Lu A and others were cutting firewood. At this time, many gunmen were sentenced to prison sentences during the nationwide "strike hard" campaign. The two shotguns held by the private prosecutor Lu were unlicensed and lethal, and were subject to national laws and regulations. Therefore, the private prosecutor Lu was first suspected of committing the crime of illegally holding a gun. The defendant Lu A and others seized his hunting rifle and handed it over to the public security police, which was a legitimate act in accordance with the law. Judging from the purpose of the defendant Lu A and others tying Lu, it was to stop Lu from injuring or killing people with a gun and protect the personal rights of Lu A and others from unlawful infringement. Judging from the defense time, Lu aimed his gun at Lu A and opened fire at Lu A only 3 meters away. This was an ongoing illegal infringement. Lu A and others rushed forward, seized the gun, tied Lu, and promptly called to report to the Public Security Bureau and the police station. Their defense was timely. Judging from the object of defense, Lu A and others only tied Lu, who fired the gun, and did not involve anyone else. Judging from the limits of defense, Lu A and others only tied Lu's hands and feet to restrict and prevent Lu from committing another gun attack. They also loosened the binding immediately after the police from the police station arrived. Their defensive behavior was not excessive. Judging from the illegal infringement, Lu shot Lu A at close range with a lethal shotgun, which was a crime of intentional homicide. Therefore, the behavior of Lu A and others tying up and injuring Lu met the conditions for legitimate defense. In addition, according to the provisions of Article 20, paragraph 3, of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, Lu A and others took defense against Lu's ongoing violent criminal act of murder and murder with a gun, even if Lu was injured or injured, it would not be excessive defense and would not bear criminal responsibility. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 128 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the court of first instance ruled that the defendants Lu A and Lu B were not guilty, and at the same time ruled that the defendants Lu A and others did not bear civil liability for compensation. The court of second instance ruled that it was upheld, which was completely correct.
