Please take a look at the industry friends who understand the law

The following conditions must be met to constitute legitimate defense: (1) there must be an unlawful offense. The illegality of the infringement is the basis for the legitimate existence of legitimate defence.

If the violation is lawful, there is no right to defend itself, as in the case of a judicial officer who has been arrested in accordance with the law. (2) The unlawful offense must be in progress in order for legitimate defense to be exercised. The so-called unlawful infringement is ongoing, which has two meanings:

First, it means that the infringement is actual and not subjectively imaginary or speculative; The second is that the wrongful infringement is ongoing, not that it has not yet occurred or has ended. (3) Legitimate defense can only be exercised if it is to defend the state, the public interest, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others. Defence for the purpose of protecting illicit interests cannot be justifiable defence.

4) Justifiable defense must be carried out against the wrongdoer himself, and cannot be carried out against others, including relatives or family members of the wrongdoer. However, those who jointly commit unlawful offenses, such as the organizers and commanders at the scene, may exercise legitimate defense. (5) Justifiable defense must not clearly exceed the necessary limit and cause significant damage.

According to the current criminal law, the so-called necessary limit refers to the limit of legitimate self-defense to effectively stop the unlawful offense. That is, as long as such a defensive act is necessary to effectively stop the unlawful infringement under the specific circumstances at the time, it cannot be considered to exceed the necessary limit, regardless of whether its nature, means, intensity and consequences are compatible with the unlawful infringement. If, on the other hand, the measures taken in defence were not necessary in the circumstances, the perpetrator should be held responsible for his conduct.

In this case, when A was out of the house, he placed a defensive device in his house, causing B to intrude into A's house and then being slightly injured by the defensive device. To be sure, A's purpose was to protect his own property and not to harm others; It is not illegal to install a defensive device in one's own home and does not endanger public safety; Although there was no ongoing unlawful aggression at the time the defence was placed, it functioned while the unlawful aggression was in progress and was therefore not a prior defence. The next step is to see whether the defense is excessive, which refers to the act of defense that clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes significant damage to the wrongdoer.

Criminal responsibility should be borne for excessive self-defense, but it should be noted that excessive self-defense is not an independent crime in itself, but should be determined according to the constitutive elements of the crime it meets. According to the general theory, excessive defense is generally subjectively negligent, but the possibility of indirect intent cannot be ruled out. In the case of negligence, if it causes the death or serious injury of another person, it constitutes the crime of negligent causing death or negligent causing serious injury; If it is indirectly and intentionally causing the death or serious injury of another person, it constitutes the crime of intentional homicide or intentional injury.

In this case, only minor injuries were caused to the infringer, which was not excessive self-defense, and therefore did not constitute the crime of intentional injury.

There is no clear limit to whether the defense is excessive or not too appropriate, and the specific circumstances depend on how the judge decides, and it is generally calculated according to the judge's judgment, and it is believed that the judge will make a reasonable and fair judgment after fully investigating the actual situation.

It depends on the extent of the beating and the circumstances of the time.

If you hire a good lawyer, there is a 90 percent chance that you will be exempt from liability or have a lighter penalty.

First of all, the acceptance of the bill and your buying and selling transactions are two separate acts. Even if your transaction fails, it will not affect the amount on your acceptance bill.

Secondly, you take this bill to the bank, and the bank pays it at sight; Unless the bill of exchange has been declared by the court, the bank will directly rebate the bill of exchange and give you a declaration right issued by the court for you to go to the court to declare.

In addition, the bill is independent, and no conditions can be attached to the endorsement content on the back, and it is invalid if it is attached. So, I don't think the proof you mentioned is not needed if it is attached to the bill.

Finally, according to what you described, you want a proof that you are not at ease with the acceptance of the bill to the bank or the payment behavior of the other party. You can ask the other party to issue a "bill, once it cannot be accepted, immediately enable other payment methods (including but not limited to bank transfer, cash payment, etc.)." A letter of undertaking or guarantee.

Yao wants.

Is it to write a refund certificate or what?