They say scaring someone to death is not worth their lives? What does the law say?

Whether it pays to scare someone to death requires a detailed analysis of the specific situation:

1. Whether the person who "feared the person to death" bears criminal responsibility depends on the subjective fault of the party concerned

According to Depending on the degree and nature of the perpetrator's subjective fault, "angrying someone to death" may produce three different legal consequences:

1. The perpetrator knowingly knows that the other person is mentally fragile and physically ill and may be angered to death, and deliberately Pursue the result of making the other party angry. Then, this kind of behavior of illegally depriving others of their lives with "qi" behavior is subjectively intentional and has an inevitable causal relationship with the victim's death, which constitutes a crime and must bear criminal responsibility. Article 14 of my country's "Criminal Law" stipulates: "Whoever knows that his behavior will have consequences that are harmful to society, and hopes or allows such consequences to occur, thus constituting a crime, is an intentional crime. If you commit an intentional crime, you should bear criminal responsibility." Article 15 stipulates: "It is a crime of negligence to foresee that one's actions may have consequences that are harmful to society. If one fails to foresee it due to negligence, or has foreseen it and believes that it can be avoided, so that such a result occurs, it is a crime of negligence. Crimes of negligence are stipulated in the law. Only the perpetrator shall bear criminal responsibility.”

2. The perpetrator is subjectively at fault, but does not have the purpose of pursuing the death of the other party. In a dispute, using harsh words to hurt others, insulting and irritating the other party, and causing mental disturbance. In this case, "making people mad" essentially constitutes a tort regulated by civil law.

3. The perpetrator was not at fault subjectively, and it was purely accidental that the other party was angry to death. This kind of "angering people to death" is an accident, and the perpetrator bears neither criminal nor civil liability. But from a social ethics perspective, the perpetrator should bear certain moral pressure.

2. Citizens shall bear corresponding civil liability for bodily harm

Article 106 of my country's "General Principles of Civil Law" stipulates: "Citizens or legal persons who harm the state or the state due to their fault Article 119: Anyone who infringes upon the property or person of another person shall bear civil liability: "Those who infringe upon the body of a citizen shall be compensated for medical expenses, loss of income due to missed work, living allowances for the disabled, etc. Expenses; if death is caused, funeral expenses, necessary living expenses of the deceased’s dependents and other expenses should be paid.”

In this case, although the defendant Mr. Hong does not bear criminal responsibility, his behavior caused the victim. The cause of a person's death is subjectively at fault, so he should bear the corresponding civil liability for compensation. It is worth noting that although Mr. Hong did not directly infringe the victim's body with his limbs or other tools, his verbal attacks affected the victim's mood, induced illness, and led to death. Although the forms of infringement were different, the infringement was The result is the same, so the corresponding civil liability should be borne.