When the box office of *Wolf Warrior 2* surged past 5.6 billion yuan, and the blueprint for the Xiong'an New Area unfolded slowly in the spring breeze, we stand at the end of the year where roosters crow and dogs bark (a metaphor for a peaceful year), looking back at this year of transformation. In 2017, the light of the rule of law pierced through the hustle and bustle: the second instance retrial of the Yu Huan case redefined "justifiable defense" from paper to people's hearts; the death sentence in the Hangzhou nanny arson case upheld the bottom line of justice amid grief. This was a year of in-depth dialogue between the rule of law and public opinion, with every high-profile incident asking: How should the law respond to the joys and sorrows of human life?

I. The Yu Huan Case: When Reason and Law Collide Fiercely

"The law must not only punish evil and promote good, but also understand the despair and struggle deep in people's hearts."

【Case Review】

In March 2017, a report by Southern Weekend brought the "Yu Huan case" to public attention. On April 14, 2016, in Liaocheng, Shandong Province, female entrepreneur Su Yinxia was illegally detained by 11 debt collectors for failing to repay usurious loans. She was subjected to insults, slaps in the face, having her mouth covered with shoes, and even being exposed in public. Her 22-year-old son Yu Huan, witnessing his mother's humiliation, stabbed the debt collectors with a knife, resulting in one death, two serious injuries, and one minor injury.

In February 2017, the Liaocheng Intermediate People's Court sentenced Yu Huan to life imprisonment for intentional injury in the first instance. The verdict caused an uproar and triggered a nationwide debate. On June 23, the Shandong Higher People's Court revised the sentence to five years in prison in the second instance.

【Lu Heng's Perspective】

The Yu Huan case attracted nationwide attention because it touched the entanglement in everyone's heart about "natural justice, national law, and human sentiment". The difference between the first-instance verdict and the second-instance retrial actually reflects the deepening of the judiciary's understanding and application of the "justifiable defense" system.

According to Article 20 of the Criminal Law, justifiable defense must be directed against "on-going unlawful infringement". The second-instance court held that although the unlawful infringement faced by Yu Huan had not reached the level of depriving life, the illegal detention and insult committed by the debt collectors constituted serious unlawful infringement. Moreover, after the police left, Yu Huan and his mother still faced a real and imminent danger. Therefore, his act was defensive in nature but exceeded the necessary limit, belonging to "excessive defense".

The greatest significance of this case is that it became a national public legal education lesson. It promoted social attention to issues such as usury, violent debt collection, and on-site police disposal, and also enabled a rational examination of the relationship between the judiciary and public opinion - the judiciary did not avoid the reasonable concerns of public opinion, and finally made a verdict that stands up to scrutiny within the framework of the law, safeguarding the last line of defense for fairness and justice.

II. The Hangzhou Nanny Arson Case: Greed of Human Nature and Extinction of Conscience

"When trust is betrayed and lives perish in the sea of fire, the law must give the heaviest response."

【Case Review】

On June 22, 2017, an arson case occurred in the "Blue Qiantang" residential community in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, resulting in the death of employer Zhu Xiaozhen and her three children, a total of four people. After investigation, the arsonist was Mo Huanjing, the nanny employed by the family. Mo Huanjing, who was in debt due to gambling, had stolen property from her employer multiple times. To cover up her crimes, she intentionally set fire, causing an irreparable tragedy.

On February 9, 2018, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court sentenced Mo Huanjing to death penalty for arson and theft in the first instance.

【Lu Heng's Perspective】

This case tore apart the public's basic trust in the "employment relationship". From a legal perspective, Mo Huanjing's acts constituted both theft and arson. She stole property by taking advantage of her employer's trust, which constituted theft; and she set fire to a high-rise residential building to destroy traces of theft, subjectively being indifferent to the possible casualties, which constituted indirect intentional homicide. The court's final death sentence reflected the principle of suiting punishment to crime and responsibility.

What this case left to society is not only grief but also in-depth reflection: loopholes in the access and supervision of the domestic service industry, potential fire safety hazards in high-rise buildings, and how to identify and stay away from people with "bad habits" (such as gambling). Mo Huanjing's death sentence is not only a comfort to the deceased but also a severe warning to all those who attempt to challenge the bottom line of law and human nature.

III. The Jiang Ge Case: Torture of Morality and Law

"When life and death are separated by a door, what can the law do? What can morality do?"

【Case Review】

On November 3, 2016, Chinese female student Jiang Ge studying in Japan was killed by Chen Shifeng, the ex-boyfriend of her roommate Liu Xin, outside her residence in Tokyo. When Jiang Ge was killed, Liu Xin hid inside the door, and Jiang Ge could not enter. In the following year, Jiang Ge's mother and Liu Xin engaged in a fierce dispute online over "failing to save a life in danger" and "repaying kindness with ingratitude", which triggered a public outcry.

On December 20, 2017, the Tokyo District Court in Japan sentenced Chen Shifeng to 20 years in prison for intentional homicide.

【Lu Heng's Perspective】

Although Chen Shifeng was tried in Japan, the focus of public opinion in China has always been on Liu Xin: legally speaking, should Liu Xin bear legal responsibility for Jiang Ge's death? Morally speaking, should Liu Xin be condemned for her indifference after the incident?

From a legal perspective, based on existing information, it is difficult for Liu Xin to be convicted as an accomplice to intentional homicide. However, if it can be proved that Liu Xin knew that the attacker outside the door was Chen Shifeng and that he was extremely dangerous, but failed to help Jiang Ge out of fear or indifference (such as opening the door or calling the police), she may face the determination of civil tort liability, that is, bear corresponding compensation liability for Jiang Ge's death due to her omission (the duty to rescue arising from a prior act).

What pierced the public's nerves in the Jiang Ge case is not only the cruelty of the murderer but also the avoidance and vicious words of the rescued person (Liu Xin) afterwards. It prompted people to reflect: Law is the bottom line of morality. When an act cannot be pursued by law, moral trial and public opinion supervision still have the power to uphold justice. This case also promoted a social discussion on reshaping the traditional virtue of "gratitude".

IV. Shared Bike Deposit Refund Difficulties: Trust Crisis of the New Economic Model

"When innovation gallops forward, can the pace of the law keep up? Who will protect users' hard-earned money?"

【Case Review】

In the second half of 2017, as Wukong Bike, Dingding Bike, Xiaoming Bike, Kuqi Bike and other shared bike companies successively ran into operational difficulties, tens of millions of users fell into panic and anger over "difficulty in getting deposits refunded". According to statistics, by the end of 2017, the estimated deposit loss of shared bike users nationwide exceeded 1 billion yuan. In December 2017, the Guangdong Provincial Consumer Council filed the first nationwide consumer public interest lawsuit in China over the deposit issue of "Xiaoming Bike".