【作者】 王欣元；

【导师】 杨兴培；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法学院 ， 刑法学， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 尽管我国学者已经对正当防卫进行了比较充分的研究,现行刑法对正当防卫的规定已经取得了长足的进展,但毋庸讳言,理论上对正当防卫的成立要件还存在一些认识上的误区,现行刑法关于正当防卫的规定还存在一些不尽如人意之处。有鉴于此,本文以正当防卫的成立要件与立法完善为研究对象,反思正当防卫的成立要件,并对完善我国的正当防卫制度提出建议。全文分为三部分:第一部分:一般防卫的成立要件。本部分依次探讨了一般防卫的基础条件、时机条件、对象条件、主观条件和限度条件。关于一般防卫的基础条件,本文认为应以是否和法律相违背而不是所谓的“主观说”和“客观说”作为界定不法侵害的理论依据。在此基础上,本文依次探讨了能否对过失犯罪、意外事件、不作为犯罪以及防卫过当实施正当防卫这四个问题。关于一般防卫的时机条件,和传统观点不同,本文认为一般防卫的时机条件既包括积极要件——“合法权益直接面临危险”,也包括消极要件——无法及时取得公权力的救助。在此基础上,本文探讨了预先防范措施是否属于正当防卫和能否对重复侵害行为实施正当防卫这两个问题。关于一般防卫的对象条件,本文着重论证了对无责任能力人也可以实施正当防卫。关于一般防卫的主观条件,本文对传统观点提出质疑,认为正当防卫的主观条件只包括防卫认识,不包括防卫目的。关于一般防卫的限度条件,本文认为一般防卫的限度条件并不是通常所说的未“明显超过必要限度造成重大损害”,而是未超过必要限度。在基本相适应说、必要说和折衷说这三种观点中,必要说对必要限度的界定最为合理。第二部分:特殊防卫的成立要件。在本部分,本文在论证特殊防卫也具有限度条件的基础上,提出特殊防卫的成立要件也包括五个方面。鉴于在成立要件方面特殊防卫和一般防卫的区别是基础条件不同,本部分着重探讨特殊防卫的基础条件。此外,本部分还探讨了特殊防卫权的行使主体是否仅限于被侵害者本人以及能否对无责任能力人能否实施特殊防卫这两个问题。在我们看来,被侵害者以外的人也可以行使特殊防卫权,对无责任能力人不得实施特殊防卫。第三部分:正当防卫的立法缺陷及其完善。在本部分,本文在比较我国和其他国家和地区关于正当防卫的立法例的基础上,指出我国的正当防卫制度在语言表达和实体内容两方面存在缺陷。本文认为,应从以下三方面完善我国的正当防卫制度:(1)废除特殊防卫制度。(2)将第20条第1款修改为“明知国家、公共利益、本人或者他人的人身、财产和其他权利面临急迫的不法侵害,为制止不法侵害而对不法侵害者本人采取的必要的防卫措施,属于正当防卫”,将第2款修改为“防卫行为明显超出制止不法侵害所必须的限度并造成严重后果的,应当负刑事责任,但是应当减轻或者免除处罚。当上述行为是因为恐怖、惊愕、兴奋或者过于惊慌失措引起时,应当免除处罚”。(3)在第3款中规定“对无责任能力人实施的不法侵害,可以实施正当防卫”。更多还原

【Abstract】 Although abundant research about justifiable defence have been made by scholars in our country as well as quiet great progress has been made by new criminal law on justifiable defence system , but there are still some misunderstandings on valid element of justifiable defence. At the same time, the justifiable defense system is not perfect. As a result , this paper tries to study the of justifiable defence. The whole passage is divided into three parts:The first part is about the research on valid element of general defence. In this part , the writer discuss the foundation condition , opportunity condition, object condition, subjective condition and limit condition. With regard to foundation condition, this paper points out that actually the“unlawful infringement”is an action which goes against the law, the so called“subjective theory”and“external theory”cannot be the criterion to judge whether an action is“unlawful infringement”. In succession, this paper discusses the following four problems in turn: Suppose the“unlawful infringement”is misstep, accident , nonfeasance or undue defence ,can we exertion defense-right ? With regard to opportunity condition, different from traditionally standpoint, this paper opportunity condition can be divided into two types: the first is active condition——rights and interests are being intimidated directly ,the second is negative condition——cannot gain assistance from government in due course. In succession, this paper discusses the following two problems: First , whether setting safeguard in advance is justifiable defence; Second , whether infringing repeatedly is justifiable defence. With regard to object condition, this paper argues that we can exert defense-right to unaccountable person. With regard to subjective condition, the writer oppugns the traditional standpoint, represents that the subjective condition is defence cognition, ex defence intent. With regard to limit condition, this paper believes that the limit condition is not exceeds necessary limit, while not the prevalent“exceeds the limits of necessity and causes serious damage”. Among the following three viewpoints——“Corresponding basically theory”,“necessary theory”and“eclectic theory”, the“necessary theory”is excellent.The second part is about the research on valid element of special defense. At first , the writer attest that special defense still has limit condition. Then, the writer argue that there are five necessary elements in special defense. In respect that the main dissimilarity between general defence and special defense , this part mostly discusses foundation condition of special defense. Besides, another two important problems are been discussed in this part : the first is whether person except the victim has right to exert special defence-right; the second is whether special defense-right can be exerted to unaccountable person. In our opinion , the answer to the first problem is positive while the second is negative.The third part is about the research on limitation and perfection of justifiable defense system. In this part ,the writer firstly compare provisions on justifiable defence between China and other countries and regions, point out that there are two aspects limitation in our criminal law : one is linguistic, the other is entitative. In our opinion, in order to perfect our justifiable defense system ,the following three suggestions should be adopted: (1) Abolish special defense system; (2) Section 1 of article 20 should be modified as“A person who is conscious of that interests of the State and the public, or his own or other person’s rights is faced with urgent danger adopts necessary measure to assault the perpetrator to stop the unlawful infringement , is justifiable defence.”Section 2 of article 20 should be modified as“If a person’s defensive act obviously exceeds limits to overwhelm the perpetrator, causes serious damage, he shall bear criminal responsibility; However, he shall be given a mitigated punishment or be exempted from punishment. While the above-mentioned act is owe to ghastfulness, consternation, excitation or excessively panic-stricken, he shall be exempted from punishment.”(3) Section 3 of article 20 should be designed like this:“when the perpetrator is incapable, people still have right to exert defence-right.”更多还原