Asked what kind of behavior Li s behavior belonged to and whether it constituted a crime. Why?

Judging from your description, it should be justified defense, but relevant evidence is needed to prove it! If the evidence is not good, it may be considered excessive defense! Is 14th birthday one year old? If it is not the first birthday, then it is under the age of 14, then there is no criminal responsibility!

If the other party is a robbery, Li is justified in self-defense, does not constitute a crime, and does not bear criminal responsibility. The specific facts ascertained shall prevail.

Although Li was illegally infringed, Liu and Zhang only used the knife to force Li to give up the protection of his property, so Li's conduct has constituted excessive defense and should be reduced or exempted.

Li is only 14 years old, which is the legal age of not bearing criminal responsibility.

Therefore, it only needs Li's family to bear civil liability.

Article 20 of the Criminal Law stipulates that if an act taken to stop an unlawful infringement is taken to protect the state, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from an ongoing unlawful infringement, and causes damage to the unlawful infringer, it shall be regarded as legitimate defense and shall not bear criminal responsibility.

The second paragraph of Article 20 of the Criminal Law stipulates: "Where legitimate defense clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes major harm, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but punishment shall be reduced or waived."

Li Moumou is 16 years old and can bear criminal responsibility, but according to Article 299 of the Criminal Law, the circumstances have not yet reached the severity of the circumstances, so he does not need to bear criminal responsibility.

In the civil law, according to Article 19 of the Civil Law, Li Moumou is a minor with limited capacity for civil conduct, and the act of infringing on the name of the martyr requires the consent of the statutory ** person to be recognized, so he does not bear civil liability.

To put it simply, all violations of the current laws are illegal, ranging from criminal law violations to traffic rules.

However, crime is the most serious of the illegal acts, and it refers specifically to the violation of the relevant provisions of the criminal law.

For example, if a person is deliberately crippled and is not justified in self-defense, it is a criminal offense. However, if two people fight and do not cause any harm (only red, or swollen, etc.), it is usually a violation of the public security management regulations, and it is generally not a crime.

a.Illegal possession of items advocating terrorism.

b.Forcing others to wear clothing and symbols that promote terrorism in public places.

c.Funding of terrorist organizations.

d.Provide a field for the training of terrorist activities.

Correct answer: ABCD

It is recommended to check the sub-provisions of the criminal law and obtain the results through comparison.

What about the topic... No title, who knows...

An illegal act refers to an act that violates the provisions of the law, and a criminal act refers to an act that violates the criminal law and is punishable by criminal punishment in accordance with the law. Where the circumstances of the illegal conduct are obvious, the slight hail leakage of the sedan car is not great, and the harm is not great, it is not considered a crime, and may be given a public security administrative punishment in accordance with law.

Article 3 of the Criminal Law, where the law clearly stipulates that it is a criminal act, it shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the law; Where the law does not expressly provide for criminal conduct, it must not be convicted and sentenced.