That single strike in Yu Haiming's self-defense case in Kunshan broke the years-long silence surrounding justifiable defense and forged a consensus on the rule of law for an era. In 2018, we witnessed "Law shall not yield to unlawfulness" transform from a slogan into judicial practice, saw the Changchun Changsheng vaccine incident result in a 9.1 billion yuan fine, declaring that public safety brooks no trampling, and witnessed the overhaul of the Individual Income Tax Law bring tax reduction benefits to hundreds of millions of families. It was a year of progress amid disputes and growth amid pains, where the power of the rule of law quietly took root in every case.

I. Kunshan Yu Haiming Case: A Model of the Rule of Law for Justifiable Defense

"Law shall not yield to unlawfulness" — these eight words finally moved from ideology to reality.

【Incident Review】

On the evening of August 27, 2018, in Kunshan, Jiangsu Province, a minor traffic accident occurred between a BMW sedan and an electric bicycle. A man in the car,Liu Hailong, chased and hacked the electric bicycle rider,Yu Haiming, with a knife. During the chase and hacking, the knife fell off, and Yu Haiming picked it up and counterattacked, resulting in Liu Hailong's death.

After the surveillance video was exposed, public opinion fermented continuously, and "justifiable defense or excessive defense" became a topic of nationwide heated discussion. On September 1, the Kunshan Public Security Bureau announced:Yu Haiming's act constituted justifiable defense and he was not liable for criminal responsibility.

【Luheng's Perspective】

The Kunshan case has become a benchmark for the rule of law of the year because it vividly interprets the spirit of the rule of law that "Law shall not yield to unlawfulness". According to Article 20 of the Criminal Law, justifiable defense must be directed against "on-going unlawful infringement". In this case, Liu Hailong's chasing and hacking with a knife constituted a violent crime that seriously endangered personal safety, and Yu Haiming's counterattack after seizing the knife met the constitutive requirements ofspecial defense.

What is even more commendable is the handling method of the law enforcement authorities —Procuratorial organs intervened in advance, public security organs issued timely notifications, and the truth outpaced rumors. In December 2018, the Supreme People's Procuratorate included this case in the12th batch of guiding cases, specifically explaining the boundary standards for justifiable defense. This case confirmed the simple sense of justice through the rule of law and became a vivid textbook for national legal education.

II. Changchun Changsheng Vaccine Incident: Guarding the Bottom Line of Public Safety

"Vaccine safety issues touch the most sensitive nerve of every family."

【Incident Review】

On July 15, 2018, the National Medical Products Administration announced:Changchun Changsheng Biotechnology Co., Ltd. had illegally produced freeze-dried human rabies vaccines. Subsequent investigations found that the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DPT) combined vaccine produced by the company in 2017 was also detected to have "unqualified potency determination".

The incident continued to ferment, 15 people including the company's chairman were legally investigated, and several ministerial and provincial-level officials were held accountable. In November, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange initiated the mandatory delisting mechanism for Changsheng Bio due to major violations, and the company was ordered to pay a total fine and confiscation of9.1 billion yuan.

【Luheng's Perspective】

Vaccines are directly related to public safety and the health of children and adolescents, and admit no negligence. From a legal perspective, Changchun Changsheng not only violated the Drug Administration Law and the Regulations on the Circulation and Prevention of Vaccines, but also committed the crime ofproducing and selling substandard drugs as stipulated in Article 142 of the Criminal Law.

General Secretary Xi Jinping made important instructions on this, requiring an immediate investigation into the truth andsevere punishment in accordance with the law. Procuratorial organs intervened in accordance with the law in advance, taking only 17 days from case filing to examination and prosecution. In December of the same year, theDraft Vaccine Administration Law was submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for deliberation. From the exposure of the incident to the follow-up of legislation, in just a few months, it reflected the Party and the government's high attention to the vital interests of the people, and also demonstrated the regulatory determination of the "Four Strictests" (the most rigorous standards, the strictest supervision, the severest penalties, and the most serious accountability).

III. Hongmao Medicinal Liquor Incident: The Boundary of Power Behind Inter-provincial Arrest

"Where is the boundary of public power? How to balance local protectionism and the principles of the rule of law?"

【Incident Review】

In December 2017, Dr.Tan Qindong from Guangzhou posted an article titled "China's Divine Wine 'Hongmao Medicinal Liquor', a Poison from Heaven", questioning the exaggerated efficacy of Hongmao Medicinal Liquor's advertisements. In January 2018, the public security bureau of Liangcheng County, Inner Mongolia, arrested Tan Qindong across provinces on the charge of"damaging commodity reputation", and he was detained for more than 3 months.

After the incident was exposed, it caused an uproar in public opinion. In April, the Ministry of Public Security instructed the public security organs of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region to verify the case in accordance with the law, and Tan Qindong was released. In May, Hongmao Medicinal Liquor issued an announcement stating that it would stop all advertising placement.

【Luheng's Perspective】

The core issue exposed by the Hongmao Medicinal Liquor incident is:Has public power been abused? From a legal perspective, the application of the crime of "damaging business reputation and commodity reputation" needs to be strictly grasped, which must involve the act of "fabricating and disseminating false facts" and cause "significant losses". It is debatable whether Tan Qindong's posting constitutes a crime.

What is more worthy of reflection is that this incident reflects the conflict betweenlocal protectionism and the principles of the rule of law. The timely intervention and correction by the Ministry of Public Security reflected the supervision and restraint of higher-level authorities on local law enforcement power. The incident also promoted special rectification of pharmaceutical advertisements — in 2018, the State Administration for Market Regulation continued to intensify the investigation and punishment of false and illegal advertisements to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.

IV. Implementation of the Hero and Martyr Protection Law: Making Those Who Defame Heroes and Martyrs Pay the Price