The cause of this case is that Yang Kun's father Wang Xingyou tried to rape Yang Kun, while Yang Kun killed Wang Xingyou in the rebellion. There are two controversial points in this case: first, whether Yang Kun killed or injured Wang Xingyou and his subjective intention; Second, whether Yang Kun enjoys unlimited defense rights, even if it causes Wang Xingyou's death, it does not need to bear any responsibility. The third paragraph of Article 20 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (1997) clearly stipulates that excessive defense shall not bear criminal responsibility, that is, taking defensive actions against ongoing violent crimes such as assault, homicide, robbery and kidnapping that seriously endanger personal safety, thus causing casualties to unlawful infringers, it is not excessive defense and shall not bear criminal responsibility. It can be understood that it is not excessive to take justifiable defense against ongoing violent crimes.
As far as this case is concerned, Yang Kun undoubtedly enjoys the right of defense and unlimited defense against the rape committed by Wang Xingyou. There are many cases in which women were raped and exercised unlimited defense, resulting in the death of illegal infringers and were finally acquitted by the court.
On the question of whether Yang Kun enjoys unlimited defense rights, the core issues that should be considered in this case include: first, whether the crime of rape belongs to the "violent crime that seriously endangers personal safety" stipulated in the third paragraph of Article 20 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC); Secondly, the fact that Wang Xingyou invaded Yang Kun for a long time in this case made Yang Kun have instinctive fear of Wang Xingyou, and his defensive behavior was more of an instinct than the result of subjectively pursuing Wang Xingyou's death. Third, in a specific time and space environment, as long as Yang Kun is still facing the real danger of being raped, it has the right to implement unlimited defense. The "ongoing" stipulated by law cannot be mechanically interpreted as a certain moment or a very short time, but should be defined as a reasonable period for the victim to still face violent crimes that endanger personal safety; Fourth, the crime scene was dark, and Yang Kun resisted instinctively. It is impossible to force Yang Kun to choose a specific, non-lethal part for self-defense, which is beyond his power; Fifth, in the judicial concept, we can't convict by "the result of the case", and without the result of death, we can't conclude that Yang Kun committed the crime of homicide or intentional injury; Sixth, from the perspective of legal interests and social effects, in this case, considering the above factors, we should "lower" the standard of determining "unlimited defense right" and determine whether Yang Kun committed intentional homicide according to the highest conviction standard; Yang Kun should bear the burden of proof for its defense of unlimited defense, otherwise, its rights will be easily abused. As far as this case is concerned, the facts and evidence in favor of Yang Kun are sufficient, and Yang Kun should be acquitted according to law.