[Woman was splashed with corrosive liquid to resist is legitimate defense Court of Second Instance: The defensive act did not exceed the limit without compensation] Shanghai woman Wang Yue (pseudonym, the following is the same) Was beaten by a group of "intruders" who suddenly broke into the door of the house, and Wang Yue and her husband were both broken nosebone, and their faces were covered with blood. The son and the old mother were also pressed into the corner of the wall and could not move. Wang Yue was in a hurry, grabbed the sprinkler kettle next to him and threw it at the person in front of him, not thinking that it was a corrosive paint stripper, and Chen Jun, one of the "invaders" standing opposite Wang Yue, was just hit. Those who came to make trouble were frightened and called the police. After the appraisal, Chen Jun's torso and limbs were burned, constituting minor injuries. Wang Yue was criminally detained on suspicion of intentional injury, and after investigation, the procuratorate held that Wang Yue's actions were legitimate defense and should not be pursued for criminal responsibility. However, Chen Jun was indignant and filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that Wang Yue compensate for his economic losses. The court of first instance found that Wang Yue was overly defensive and should bear 35% of the responsibility for Chen Jun's injuries. At the second instance trial, the Shanghai Intermediate People's Court held that from the perspective of the behavior of Chen Jun and others, it was intentionally done knowing that their behavior might cause infringement to the rights and interests of others, and it had the intention of joint infringement; before Wang Yue counterattacked, the infringement behavior of Chen Jun and others was in a continuous state; and Wang Yue's act of grabbing the sprinkler next to him to spill it was a defense against the illegal infringement that was in progress, not a retaliation or defensive provocation under the pretext of defense. Therefore, Wang Yue's defensive behavior did not exceed the limit, which was legitimate defense and did not require compensation. The first-instance judgment was revoked and the judgment was changed to reject all of Chen Jun's first-instance litigation claims. (Shanghai Rule of Law News)
Source: Guangzhou Daily