“民刑法防卫过当二元论”质疑

Query on the Dualist Theory about Excessive Defense in Civil Law and Criminal Law

对民刑法上的防卫过当有各自的规范要求和评判标准的观点应予否定。不仅实务中并不存在同一防卫行为在民刑法中被相反定性的情形,而且从理论上讲,由合法性的一元论所决定,在民刑法上不应当作相反的界定,否则,在既判力问题、见义勇为及逆防卫等问题上将导致矛盾的判断,令人无所适从。民刑法防卫过当二元论的提出,与过度解读民刑法关于防卫过当的所谓立法差异紧密相关。但实际上,无论在民法还是刑法上,防卫过当都应当被统一解释为:一般人无可争议地认为,该防卫行为超过了制止不法侵害所必要的限度,并因此造成了重大损害。

It should be denied that the excessive defense in criminal law and criminal Law has different regulations and standards.On the one hand,there are not such cases in which the same defense behavior was identified inversely between civil Law and criminal law;on the other hand,it is impossible theoretically for civil law and criminal law based on monism of the legitimacy to make a definition of contradictions.Otherwise,contradictions will be inevitable in these problems such as the rechtskraft,brave act of righteousness and inverse defense,which will be confused.The dualist theory above-mentioned should be attributed to improper understanding of legislation about the excessive defense in civil law and criminal law.In fact,the excessive defense both civil law and criminal law should be unified explanation,namely,it is no doubt for the average person that the defense exceeds the necessary limits to stop the violation,and thus caused significant damage.