How to write the defense against property damage?

After our country involves property infringement, some may involve corresponding measures in defense, so how should we write the defense of property losses caused by infringement? According to the regulations, the defense should include some related matters to distinguish the responsibilities of all parties. The specific content still depends on the following. The defense mode is as follows: Sun Mou, male, Han nationality, ID number, address and telephone number. In order to clarify the facts and clarify the responsibilities, the Respondent now puts forward the following defense on the dispute over personal injury compensation with the Respondent: 1. For the occurrence of personal injury compensation disputes in this case, the respondent himself has a major fault, and the respondent's responsibility can be reduced according to law. Therefore, it is legal and reasonable for the court to divide the civil compensation part of this case according to the fault of both parties. The reasons are as follows: Every event has a certain cause. There is no contradiction between the defendant and the defendant in the same village. The respondent went to the respondent's home alone to abuse the respondent's parents and the respondent because of some unfounded rumors. At first, the respondent also came forward to persuade the respondent to go home and not to make trouble in front of the respondent's house. Suddenly, many villagers in the village also rushed to watch the news, and some even advised the respondents to go home. However, the respondent ignored the advice of others and abused the respondent's parents and the respondent more and more seriously, which led to physical conflicts between the respondent and the respondent. Therefore, as far as this case is concerned, the respondent also has a major fault in the occurrence of this civil dispute. If the respondent did not insult the respondent and the respondent's parents first, there would be no result of this civil dispute. Article 26 of the Tort Liability Law also stipulates: "If the infringed party is also at fault for the occurrence of your damage, the liability of the infringer may be reduced." Therefore, it is legal and reasonable for the court to divide the civil compensation part of this case according to the fault of both parties. 2. The defendant wrote in the civil complaint: "In the process of explaining some misunderstandings between the plaintiff and the defendant's mother in the defendant's home, the defendant suddenly rushed out of the house and beat the plaintiff, kicking the plaintiff's chest and waist respectively, causing the plaintiff to fall to the ground and faint on the spot, unconscious, and was rescued by the onlookers and sent home." This statement is inconsistent with the facts. The reasons are as follows: First, the respondents are adults and have some self-control. He saw it. How can he go forward and hit the defendant? This is difficult for normal people to understand. If the respondent had a deep hatred for the respondent before, and the respondent knew that the respondent was young and strong, how dare she go to the respondent's home alone? This obviously doesn't make sense. Facts are facts. The respondents did not have any sophistry in the interrogation process of the public security organs, and would not come forward to watch the respondents being beaten for no reason. However, the Respondent said nothing about insulting the Respondent's parents and the Respondent, and put all the responsibilities on the Respondent, which was obviously inconsistent with the facts of the case and made people think that the Respondent had slandered the Respondent. Secondly, the respondent mentioned that the respondent kicked himself in the chest and waist respectively, which is not true. In the interrogation record made by the public security organ, the respondent only mentioned that he twisted his leg (dialect) and did not kick the respondent in the chest and waist. On the contrary, in the two transcripts made by the public security organs, the respondent made different statements about the body parts beaten by the respondent. 20 13 10 mentioned in the transcript of the first interrogation: "Sun Kang kicked me, kicked me." 2013115 mentioned in the transcript of the second inquiry: "At that time, Sun Kang kicked me near my waist". The respondent has now made the third statement in the civil complaint, saying that "the respondent kicked the respondent in the chest and waist." I think even the respondents can't tell which of these three statements is true. On the contrary, the respondent's statement in the public security organ is much more objective, because the respondent has not made any sophistry. If you make a mistake, you have to admit it. In the interrogation record of the public security organ, the respondent always admitted that he twisted the respondent's left leg with his foot (dialect), and the conflict between the two sides was completely caused by the respondent's insults to the respondent's parents and the respondent's talent. In addition, Donghai county also wrote in the administrative penalty decision that 20 132029 was sent to the respondent on 201010 on October 29th: "201310/kloc-0. This is basically consistent with the respondents' statement. To sum up, the defendant's statement about the specific part of the defendant's beating in the complaint is inconsistent with the facts. Thirdly, the respondent wrote in the complaint: "I was unconscious on the spot because the respondent kicked me. Later, he was rescued by other villagers and sent home. "This is not true. The respondent admitted that he kicked the respondent's left leg with his foot, because the strength was not strong enough to kick the respondent down on the spot. The respondent stood awake and didn't faint on the spot. Only when the respondent's eldest sister-in-law helped her to go home, she collapsed on the ground because of temporary sadness. As for whether the respondent really fainted, others don't know. However, some kind villagers strangled them and sent the defendant home with his eldest sister-in-law. The eldest sister-in-law of the respondent sent the respondent home, and immediately went to the village health center to call a doctor to visit the respondent's home. At that time, the doctor conducted a physical examination at the respondent's home and found no problem. Fourthly, the respondent objected to the authenticity, legality and relevance of the diagnosis results of Donghai County People's Hospital issued by the respondent in the complaint. Whether the respondent's injury to the respondent is caused by the respondent is controversial. Because on the day of the dispute, the respondent asked the public security organ for injury identification, but because there was no external injury or internal injury on the respondent, the public security organ did not identify the injury of the respondent. This point was also confirmed in the second interrogation record made by the respondent in the public security organ on 201315. The public security organ asked: "Do you require forensic expertise? "The respondent replied," I asked for a forensic examination, but I didn't identify my injury, and I didn't do it later. "Therefore, the respondent disagrees with the authenticity, legality and relevance of the hospital diagnosis results provided by the respondent, and it will not be recognized. Therefore, the respondent hopes that the court can find out the facts and distinguish the responsibilities of both parties, so as to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent. Thirdly, after the dispute occurred, the public security organs tried to mediate the civil dispute between the respondent and the respondent, and the respondent always had a good attitude and cooperated with the mediation work of the public security organs. However, the defendant made unreasonable demands. It is obviously illegal and unreasonable to let the respondent take full responsibility and compensate the actual loss of the respondent, although the actual loss of the respondent is not large and there is fault. The respondent is not unreasonable. The defendant believes that it is fair for both parties to find out the facts and distinguish the responsibilities. To sum up, the respondent hopes that the court can find out the facts, distinguish the responsibilities, reject the respondent's unreasonable claims according to law, and make a fair judgment according to the situation of the troublemaker, the faults of both parties and the attitude of both parties in handling disputes. Respondent: There are three points mentioned in the article, which are about the relevant contents that should be paid attention to in the defense, and at the same time, how to write about the property losses caused by infringement in the defense can be solved. Here we can know that this kind of property infringement should be punished accordingly, and we should also realize that the provisions of our national laws are relatively strict.