A Comparative Study Of Imperfect Self-Defence In China And Korea

Self-Defence is a system with a long history.It is an area where there is fierce debate in many countries,in many aspects,and for a long time.In the judicial practice of China and South Korea,there are also many disputes in cases involving Self-Defence,and the core of the problem lies in whether to constitute Self-Defence and whether it is excessive.The main problem is that the judgment standards of the Self-Defence limits are not clear and not uniform.This issue has caused fierce debates in the practical and theoretical circles,which is enough to show that this is a question worthy of further study.Meanwhile China and Korea not only have similar understandings in culture,but also have closer national relations in history than any other country.In recent years,China and Korea have conducted frequent exchanges in various fields,including the field of law.However,comparative research on Self-Defence has hardly been conducted,especially in the field of judicial practice.In this regard,a comparative study of the Self-Defence limits of China and Korea is necessary at this stage.This thesis adopts the research method of comparative analysis,comprehensive analysis of theory and practice.A systematic comparison and analysis of the similarities and differences between China and Korea's Imperfect Self-Defence theories,summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the two countries Imperfect Self-Defence theories,and attempts to make a comprehensive analysis of the theory and practice,which is justified The mutual reference of Self-Defence theory makes a certain contribution.In addition to the introduction,this thesis is divided into four parts.The first part introduces the theory that analyzes the concept and criterion of Imperfect Self-Defence.Analyze the relevant disputes in the academic circles of the two countries,and examine the comparative legal significance of ongoing disputes in various countries.The second part introduces the controversy over the type of Imperfect SelfDefence.This is related to the controversy over the expansion of Self-Defence and Imperfect Self-Defence.It is reviewed whether to recognize the virtual Imperfect SelfDefence and quantitative Imperfect Self-Defence as a type of Imperfect Self-Defence,and whether to apply the provisions of the criminal law on Self-Defence.The third part introduces and analyzes the current status of judicial practice in China and Korea regarding Imperfect Self-Defence.First,through the actual cases of Self-Defence and Imperfect Self-Defence,analyze the attitudes of judicial institutions in various countries to this problem,examine the problems existing in judicial practice,and then compare and study the similarities and differences of the problem points and the reasons for their solutions The proposal provides the basis.The fourth part puts forward the solution of the problem of Imperfect Self-Defence and the method of perfecting the Self-Defence system based on the legal theory and judicial practice of the above analysis.Divided into two aspects of legislation and justice,compared the advantages and disadvantages of each country,proposed to serve as a mirror of each other,and put forward opinions on the development direction of the Self-Defence systems of the two countries.This research starts from the fact that both China and Korea have quite a public awareness of the issue of Self-Defence in judicial practice.The problems faced by the judicial practice of the two countries are almost identical,that is,the handling of cases of Self-Defence cannot be trusted by the general public.Although the author's basic attitude is that it is necessary to expand the extension of Self-Defence,it does not mean that it is necessary to expand the recognition of Self-Defence.The ultimate goal of this study is to restore citizens' trust in criminal justice.It is hoped that this study will become the starting point of comparative studies that will continue to be active in the future,and the Self-Defence system will become a system that contributes to the improvement of judicial trust.