The movie 《Article 20》is adapted from Yu Haiming's legitimate defense case. This is a typical anti-murder case. That is, the deceased Liu first attacked Yu Haiming with a knife. Yu Haiming snatched Liu's machete during the counterattack and chased him.Kill Liu and cause his death.This case involves the understanding that unlawful infringement is ongoing.

The Guiding Case pointed out: “ Regarding the issue of whether Liu's infringement behavior is "ongoing".During the argument, some people pointed out that after Yu Haiming grabbed the machete, Liu's infringement had ended and was not ongoing.After argumentation, it is believed that to judge whether the infringement has ended, one should look at whether the offender has substantially left the scene and whether there is still the possibility of continuing the attack or launching another attack.After Yu Haiming grabbed the machete, Liu immediately stepped forward to fight for it. The violation did not stop. After Liu was injured, he immediately ran to the car where the machete was hidden. Yu Haiming's uninterrupted pursuit at this time also met the needs of defense.Yu Haiming pursued and slashed twice but failed to hit him. After Liu ran away from the car, Yu Haiming did not pursue him again.Therefore, when Yu Haiming grabbed the machete and counterattacked, Liu neither gave up the attack nor substantially left the scene, so the infringement cannot be considered to have stopped.”

At about 21:30 on August 27, 2018, Yu Haiming was riding a bicycle normally on Zhenchuan Road, Kunshan City, Jiangsu Province. Liu drove a car drunk and forced his way into the non-motorized lane to the right, almost colliding with Yu Haiming.One of Liu's fellow passengers got out of the car and argued with Yu Haiming. When he returned after being persuaded by the fellow passengers, Liu suddenly got out of the car and stepped forward to push, kick and beat Yu Haiming.Despite being persuaded, Liu continued to pursue him, took out a machete (a controlled knife) from the car, and continuously hit Haiming's neck, waist, and legs with the blade.Liu shook off the machete during the blow, and Yu Haiming grabbed the machete. Liu stepped forward to fight for it. During the fight, Yu Haiming stabbed Liu in the abdomen and buttocks, and slashed at his right chest, left shoulder, and left elbow.After Liu was injured, he ran towards the car. Yu Haiming continued to pursue and slashed him twice, but failed to hit him. One of them hit the car.Liu ran away from the car, and Yu Haiming returned to the car, took out Liu's mobile phone from the car and put it into his pocket.After the police arrived at the scene, Yu Haiming handed over his mobile phone and machete to the police officer (Yu Haiming said that Liu's mobile phone was taken away to prevent the other party from calling people to summon people for retaliation).After Liu escaped, he collapsed in a nearby green belt. After being sent to the hospital, resuscitation efforts failed and he died on the same day due to hemorrhagic shock caused by the rupture of a large abdominal vein.After Yu Haiming's physical examination, he found 1 strip-shaped contusion on the left neck and 1 strip-shaped contusion on the left chest and ribs.

On the night of August 27, the public security organs opened a case for investigation into Yu Haiming's intentional injury case. On August 31, the public security organs found out all the facts of this case.On September 1, the Public Security Bureau of Kunshan City, Jiangsu Province, based on the facts ascertained during the investigation and the provisions of Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, determined that Yu Haiming's behavior was legitimate defense and he was not criminally responsible, and decided toYu Haiming's intentional injury case was dismissed in accordance with the law.During this period, the public security organ listened to the opinions of the procuratorial organ in accordance with relevant regulations, and the Kunshan Municipal People's Procuratorate agreed with the public security organ's decision to cancel the case.

Justifiable defense presupposes that unlawful infringement is ongoing.The so-called ongoing violation means that the illegal infringement has begun but has not yet ended.Illegal infringements are diverse and of different natures. To determine whether they are ongoing, a specific analysis should be made based on the specific behaviors and on-site situations.The judgment standard cannot mechanically understand and judge the initiation and completion in criminal law, because the initiation and completion focus on the stage of the offender's punishable behavior, while the ongoing infringement focuses on the protection of the defender's interests.Therefore, it cannot be required that the unlawful infringement has been inflicted on the victim. As long as the actual danger of the unlawful infringement is imminent, or the infringement has reached a state of completion but the infringement has not been completed, it should be deemed to be ongoing.

It should be emphasized that special defense does not have the problem of excessive defense, so it cannot be broadly recognized.For cases caused by civil conflicts, where the opposition between illegality and legality is not obvious, and where there are elements of venting anger and retaliation, one should be very cautious when identifying special defense.