"The wrong attack"

- CONTENT -
The social treaty on which modern society is based was born as a result of the fact that the people in the Cambodian society have given up their absolute freedom to unite in an organized framework, in exchange for the protection of different interests in their lives. One of the basic interests to protect the judicial system is the freedom of the individual from the vulnerability of his body. In our legal system, physical freedom is protected on the civilian plane by the injustice of the attack in the law of the Nicsin.

Historical development
Tort is a “civil transfer” in contrast to the criminal. The source of the injustice of the attack, such as many other injustices, is in the English common law. The entire common law began to develop the transfer of border saga and property capitals, as these were considered the most important things in the eyes of the king. A violation of the body of others (as well as a threat to such an injury) was considered to be a fear of public peace. Attack was considered a kind of lawsuit in border control, but in a person’s body – “trespass to the person” – whose main characteristic is the direct injury to the individual. There have been three different wrongs:
The actual attack (Battery) is the physical act itself, as it is commonly thought.
A threat to the attack (Assault) – despite the criminal trial the word “assault” describes an act of physical injury, in the law of hampering meaning is a threat to attack.
(False Imprisonment)

The Damaged Ordinance
In 1942 the order was first issued in the country, but it did not include the injustice of the attack. The reason is that the orders were followed by the law of Nishisin in Cyprus, which was actually the law of English law. The reason the Cypriot law put the wrong of the attack is because the order that existed at the time in Cyprus can be compensated in cases of attack under the criminal law. However, in Israel this was not the case, and in 1944 the order was established, and it was included in the offensive. Today, the wrong of the attack is defined in section 23 of the ruling, and its special protections are defined in Article 24 of the Ordinance.

The Trial Review

Set up the wrong attack
Attack is a type of per se. This is to say, it is possible to claim an attack even if there is no damage.
Article 23 of the Nachine Ordinance defines the injustice of the attack:
Attack is the use of force of any kind, and intentionally, against a person’s body by the fire, touching, hallucination, or any other way, between methrin and indirectly, not by the consent of man or consent obtained in deception, as well as experience or threat, by act or by movement, to use such force against the body of a person, when the person experiences or the person is reasonable, and the ability to make it possible.
"Using force," regarding this section - including the use of heat, light, electricity, gas, odor or anything else, if used if it is harmful.

This definition refers to both use of force (battery, defined in the first part) and threat to use of force (assault, defined in the second part) – both are called attack. Despite the common clause, the two wrongs differ in their substance, they have different requirements, and therefore we will discuss both separately. We will see what conditions the law requires so that we can say that an attack is carried out.

The actual attack (Battery)
The foundations of injustice, i.e. the conditions required to exist so that we can say that an attack took place, as defined in S. 23 are:

Use of force of any kind... against man’s body.

Use of force
The use of force is defined by S. 23 in a very broad manner as “the suppression, touching, sliding, or in any other way, between the meshrin and indirectly,” including also “use of heat, light, electricity, gas, smell, or anything else. If it has to be harmful.”

From this definition (the force of any kind) indicates that it is not necessary for the operation of the attack to cause damage. We will also arrive