防卫过当判断思路:学说之争与路径选择

Over-defense judgment:doctrine controversy and path choice

层出的热点案件暴露了司法在正当防卫认定不法侵害、正在进行、防卫意识和防卫限度四个方面的错位,激起了学者就防卫限度理论展开深化研究的热情,但与理论深化相伴而来的是理论之间的分歧。通过梳理并比较近来防卫限度理论研究成果之间的差别,认为在判断“明显超过必要限度造成重大损害”时,“一分说”和“二分说”的根本分歧在于对“重大损害”的理解和判断次数上的区别,并由此产生了对结果把握的难易差别。“一分说”以结果为中心的判断思路存在忽视行为复杂性的风险,应当首先坚持“二分说”的判断思路,并对“明显超过”采用客观说的理解;在判断方法上,只有在行为过当且“法益具有可恢复性”的情况下,才需进行利益衡量。

The emergence of hot cases has revealed the judicial dislocations in the areas of justifiable defense’s determination of“illegal infringement”,“in progress”,“defense consciousness”and defense limits,which has aroused scholars’enthusiasm for further research on the theory of defense limits,but accompanying the deepening of the theory is the division between theories.By sorting out and comparing the differences between recent theoretical research results of the defense limit,it is believed that the fundamental difference between the“one-point theory”and the“two-point theory”when judging that“significant damage is caused apparently beyond the necessary limit”lies in the understanding of“significant damage”and the number of judgments,and the difficulty of grasping the results.The results-centered judgment thinking of“one-point theory”has the risk of ignoring the complexity of the behavior.We should first adhere to the“two-point theory”judgment thinking and adopt an objective interpretation of“apparently exceeding”.In terms of judgment methods,only when the behavior is excessive and“legal benefits are recoverable”is the benefit measurement required.