On January 10, the first instance judgment of Jiang GE's mother Jiang Qiulian v. Liu Xin (later renamed Liu Wenxi) was pronounced, and the court ordered Liu Xin to compensate Jiang's mother for various economic losses and spiritual damages by 696000 yuan. This is not only a consolation and assistance to the injured party, but also a powerful correction to social public opinion. Review the case that once caused a sensation at home and abroad. In November 2016, Liu Xin, a student studying in Japan, had a dispute with her boyfriend Chen Shifeng and asked her classmate Jiang Ge for help. Jiang Ge agreed to live with her. On November 3, Liu Xin and Jiang Ge successively entered the corridor of the apartment. Chen Shifeng, who ambushed in advance, encountered and had a dispute with Jiang Ge walking behind. Liu Xin first entered the room and locked the door immediately. Jiang Ge was cut more than ten knives by Chen Shifeng and died of excessive blood loss. Liu Xin made many remarks afterwards to defend himself and provoke Jiang mu. After the case was exposed, it aroused great concern of public opinion. Chen Shifeng, the murderer, has been sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment by the Tokyo District Court. However, there have been disputes in the society on how to evaluate Liu Xin's behavior. Some people believe that Liu Xin bears unshirkable responsibility for Jiang GE's death. Some people also feel that it seems impossible to punish "die without saving" from the legal level. It can only be said that Liu Xin's behavior is immoral. Now, the Chengyang District Court of Qingdao, Shandong Province has given a clear answer: Liu Xin's behavior should not only be condemned by public opinion, but also be negatively evaluated by justice. After praying for many years, when Jiang's mother came out of the court, she said, "I respect the court's judgment. I'm going to tell Jiang Ge the result, and my mother did it". The situation is moving. Looking closely at the judgment results, the judgment points out that in social communication, those who introduce the risk of infringement and maintain a dangerous state have the obligation to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent others from being damaged. When Liu Xin asked Jiang Ge for help, he did not truthfully inform Jiang ge of Chen Shifeng's entanglement and intimidation, and fulfilled the obligation of good faith reminder. If Jiang Ge knows the danger of Chen Shifeng in advance, it is entirely possible to take more effective self-help methods such as timely avoidance and early alarm. Jiang Ge finally fought with his sharp knife and the cold door that couldn't be opened. Finally, he fell into a pool of blood. How can Liu Xin admit that he was not at fault? The judgment also stated that Liu Xin "ignored the life safety of others in order to protect herself and blocked Jiang Ge from being killed outside her residence", which pierced her previous lies such as "the door can not be opened". From a legal point of view, Liu Xin's anti lock of the door can not be interpreted as emergency avoidance. Hedging requires that another legal interest be harmed as a last resort to protect the larger legal interest from the ongoing danger. Both are human lives, which is bigger or smaller? Hide behind the door and watch the people who help you be brutally killed. How can you comfort yourself by "calling the police"? Helping the needy is a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation, and honesty and friendliness is an important part of the core socialist values. In the story of farmer and snake, if you try to empathize with snake, what is the difference between man and beast? Furthermore, a series of stimulating remarks made by Liu Xin undoubtedly aggravate the pain of Jiang GE's mother and hurt the common feelings of the society. We often say that those who hold salaries should not be frozen in the wind and snow. Those who lend a helping hand to others should be affirmed and relieved by the whole society; Those who let their words and deeds break through the moral bottom line again and again deserve sanctions. The judgment distinguishes right from wrong, fully affirms that Jiang GE's selfless help to others "should be praised", and believes that Liu Xin's practice "violates common sense and human feelings", which shows the value orientation of judicial punishing evil and promoting good, and flows with valuable humanistic care. "Judicial adjudication should guard the social moral bottom line, carry forward virtue and righteousness, and guide the whole society to respect morality and good." The first instance judgment of Jiang Mu v. Liu Xin has made the whole society clearly see this orientation, which is the direction of our efforts. (Xinhua News Agency)