论防卫人的救助义务——自由分配视角下的正当防卫与先前行为

On the Obligation of a Defender to Rescue

防卫行为本身符合必要性要求,但因防卫人不实施救助而导致不法侵害者重伤死亡的,不构成犯罪。法益衡量理论与正当防卫作为公民权利的概念内涵存在根本冲突。不法侵害者容忍必要防卫行为的义务,是“自我决定导致自我负责”这一基本原理在其违反“不得侵害他人”义务时的具体表现。由侵害者承担必要防卫行为溢出的重大损害结果风险,是符合法秩序平等保护公民权利宗旨的自由与责任分配方案。在不真正不作为犯的框架下,防卫人不负有救助侵害者的义务。这是因为必要防卫行为及其结果终局性地落入了不法侵害者的管辖责任范围,相应地,防卫人被免除了管辖责任从而没有义务救助侵害者。不能基于德国判例要求防卫人依照德国刑法第323c条救助不法侵害者,而在我国未规定见危不救罪的情况下要求防卫人负担保证人义务。

When the act of defense satisfies the requirement of necessity,but the aggressor's death or serious injury results from the defender not carrying out rescue,the defender is not considered as having committed a crime.The principle of balancing legal interests is fundamentally in conflict with the connotation of the concept of the right to defense,which is in essence a citizen's legitimate right.The aggressor's obligation to tolerate the necessary act of defense is the concrete expression of the basic principle of criminal law that"self-determination leads to self-responsibility"in the case of a violation of the obligation of"not harming others",and the aggressor should bear the significant damage risk accompanying the necessary act of defense.Such a distribution of the risk of consequences is consistent with the principle of allocation of responsibility for the equal protection of citizens'rights in the legal order.In the system of omission,the defender is not under a duty of care toward the aggressor's life.According to the principle of self-defense,the necessary act of defense and its results ultimately fall within the responsibility of the aggressor and,accordingly,the defender is exempted from responsibility.Chinese Criminal Law does not have the same provision as paragraph 323c of the German Criminal Code for failing to save a person in danger,so a defender does not have the obligation to render assistance where the life of the aggressor is in danger.