Seek guidance on basic issues of criminal law

This is another case made up by the judicial examination teacher. Don't learn the law every day, make it up every day.

This is a typical "imaginary hedge"

1. Hypothetical hedging: it means that there is no ongoing danger, but the actor mistakenly thinks that there is danger and implements hedging behavior, causing damage.

Second, "A saw B shaking under the telephone pole, thinking that B got an electric shock (B did not get an electric shock);

"Beating B with a stick caused B to be seriously injured;

3. Emergency avoidance: In order to protect the state, public interests, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from the ongoing danger, those who take emergency avoidance actions shall not bear criminal responsibility.

If the emergency avoidance exceeds the necessary limit and causes undue damage, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted.

Fourthly, if there is no danger in reality, the actor mistakenly believes that there is such a danger in good faith because of the wrong understanding of the facts, so he implements the so-called emergency hedging, which is called imaginary hedging in criminal law theory.

1, for hypothetical hedging, the behavior is actually illegal, but the actor mistakenly thinks it is legal and implements it. In these cases, the offender cannot be considered to have committed a crime intentionally; However, if the actor is at fault, it is considered as a negligent crime, and if there is no fault, it is considered as innocence.

2. Hypothetical hedging: refers to the behavior of hedging without danger, but the actor mistakenly thinks that there is danger and causes damage. If its social harm far exceeds the necessary limit of emergency avoidance and causes undue damage, the fault of the behavior lies in the behavior itself and it should bear criminal responsibility. Intentional crime should be recognized, and the punishment can be lightened or mitigated when sentencing;

Fifth, the author agrees with the second opinion.

1, the criminal law stipulates that excessive defense and excessive avoidance should bear criminal responsibility and be punished as intentional crime.

2. The criminal law directly stipulates that if excessive hedging causes undue damage beyond the necessary limit, it shall bear criminal responsibility. Then, if the hypothetical hedging exceeds the necessary limit and causes undue damage, it shall bear criminal responsibility;

3. Take actions to avoid risks to people and lives. These actions should be limited by law and considered to avoid risks. In any case, people who take hypothetical risks to people and lives should bear criminal responsibility.

The right to life is the right of citizens to safeguard their own life safety interests, which is mainly manifested in the right to safeguard life safety. When others illegally infringe on their own life safety, they have the right to defend themselves according to law and request judicial protection. All illegal acts leading to death are violations of the right to life.

I gave the judicial examination teacher a question:

AB two people A saw B shaking under the telephone pole, thinking that B got an electric shock (B didn't get an electric shock), and hit B with a stick, causing B to be seriously injured; B backhand killed A with an iron bar.

Help me analyze the legal relationship above?

4. Emergency hedging and imaginary hedging are hedging actions taken against the occurrence of danger;

5. Assuming hedging, according to the first statement, if there is no fault, it is considered innocent. This society can't follow, and the world is in chaos.

For example, when A saw that B had brought a big bag of cash from the bank, A mistakenly thought that B had just robbed the bank and went up and killed B. As a result, B quit normally.

For example, AB retaliated beforehand. One day, A saw B bring a big bag of cash from the bank. A mistakenly thought that B had just robbed a bank and went up to kill B. As a result, B made a normal withdrawal.

It is not a big joke that all the above cases have been found innocent.

To sum up, a hypothetical hedge should bear criminal responsibility and be deemed intentional. Otherwise, if the defense is excessive and the danger is excessive, you can be found innocent.