The video《Article 20》is mainly related to《Criminal Law》Article 20, that is, the provisions of “justifiable defense”, “excessive defense” and “non-excessive defense”.The high probability has little to do with Article 20, the Law on the Protection of Minors.

《Criminal Law》Article 20:

“Article 20 (Legitimate defense) Actions taken to stop the illegal infringement in order to protect the country, public interests, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing illegal infringement and cause damage to the illegal infringer shall be considered asJustifiable defense, not criminally responsible.

(Excessive defense) If legitimate defense obviously exceeds the necessary limit and causes serious damage, he shall bear criminal responsibility, but the punishment shall be reduced or exempted.

(No Excessive Defense) If a person takes defensive actions against an ongoing murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, or other violent crime that seriously endangers personal safety, resulting in casualties or casualties, it does not constitute excessive defense and he will not be held criminally responsible..”

《Criminal Law》 was enacted in 1979 and underwent a major revision in 1997.In addition, previous amendments to the Criminal Law mostly appeared in the form of Criminal Law Amendments.In the version that was overhauled in 1997, “Article 20” was all about “legitimate defense”.Since then, all subsequent amendments have not changed the order and content of “Article 20”.

Therefore, in summary, as long as the film's story takes place after October 1997, there is no problem in applying the current “Article 20”.(I’m just speaking in general terms here for the purpose of discussing the film.If it were an actual case, if it happened before or after this time, there would still be more in-depth legal application issues.Not expanded here.) (In addition, in the article, the parentheses and the words “justifiable defense, excessive defense, and non-excessive defense” in the parentheses are added by me to explain the main contents of these three paragraphs.If the text of the provision is to be quoted, it should be deleted.)

Someone asked, does “Article 20” also refer to Article 20 of the Law on the Protection of Minors?Personally, I think it most likely has little to do with it.

Because the currently effective Law on the Protection of Minors -Article 20 stipulates: “Article 20 If parents or other guardians of minors discover that the physical or mental health of the minor has been infringed upon, is suspected of being infringed, or that other legitimate rights and interests have been infringed, they should promptly learn about itIf the situation is serious, it should be reported immediately to the public security, civil affairs, education and other departments.”

But it depends on when the story of the film takes place.Because the currently effective Law on the Protection of Minors was revised in 2020.Before the revision, the revised version in 2012 was in effect.2012 Edition - Law on the Protection of Minors - Article 20 stipulates: “Article 20 Schools should cooperate with the parents or other guardians of minor students to ensure that minor students have sleep, entertainment and physical exercise time, and must not increase their learning burden..”

Does this provision have nothing to do with the case?Therefore, if the story of the film takes place before June 2021, it feels that it has little to do with the “Article 20” of the Minors Protection Act.(Because the current effective law - the Protection of Minors - was revised in 2020 and implemented in June 2021.)