正当防卫侵害预期的认定研究  

The Determination of Justifiable Defense Infringement Expectation

作　　者：陈钏 CHEN Chuan(School of Criminal Justice,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088,China)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学刑事司法学院,北京100088

出　　处：《四川轻化工大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第3期23-34,共12页Journal of Sichuan University of Science & Engineering：Social Sciences Edition

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目(22BFX048)。

摘　　要：优先保护防卫权以惩恶扬善是我国刑事立法长久以来欲在正当防卫制度实践中实现的社会效果,但这一价值导向并不与正当防卫之侵害预期的适用情况相契合。全景式对涉侵害预期的刑事裁判开展质性研究后,发现案件一旦涉及事先准备工具,被认定无罪的概率不足1/10,控制相当严格。究其根源,是实践的司法障碍叠加理论的供应不足使然。对侵害预期的误判总体上可被归结为两大核心议题:一是大量地否定侵害预期人的主观正当性,二是人为地向侵害预期人科以躲避义务。诱发前者的原因在于作为理论供给的传统学说对防卫意图的纯粹性要求畸高,成为了横亘在正当防卫之侵害预期适用道路上的障碍,应予校正。侵害预期作为中性的规范概念具备成立正当防卫的理论空间。在对标正当防卫时,其既不是概莫能外地具备正当性,也不应被一刀切地排除在正当防卫的场域外,而是与正当防卫之间呈现出动态的逻辑关系并具备独立的判断标准。就后者而言,部分裁判者在作出有罪判决时向侵害预期人科以的“躲避义务”是挤压正当防卫成立空间的“超法规事由”,与防卫权在我国被赋予的积极属性格格不入。要求侵害预期人先行躲避于法无据、不符法理、违背人情,不宜成为正当防卫之侵害预期的适用进路。只要《刑法》坚持将正当防卫定位为公民合法权利,损害防卫自主性的躲避义务就无从谈起。通过对侵害预期进行规范重塑,可知侵害预期的规范构造是防卫意图与加害意图相互交织的主观混合意识形态。而防卫意图与加害意图两者的认识因素可以并存、意志因素同向递进,故而侵害预期中夹杂的加害意图并非防卫意图的排除因素。只要防卫意图在混合意识形态中占据支配地位,对防卫行为起主导作用,便满足防卫主观条件;相反,唯有当侵害预期人出于伤Prioritized protection right of defense to punish crime is the social effect that the criminal law has long sought to achieve via the self-defense system in social practice,but it does not cope with the practice of the infringement anticipation in self-defense.After an overall analysis of judgments involving infringement anticipation,it is found out cases involving tools preparation judged as innocent are less than 1/10,as the result of practical obstacle and the lack of theory.The misjudgment of infringement anticipation can be divided into two aspects:many anticipators􀆳subjective legitimacy is denied;the duty to retreat is imposed gratuitously on anticipators.Reason of the former is that the traditional general theory has too high a threshold of understanding defense intention,becoming an obstacle and should be amended.As a neutral normative concept,infringement anticipation is neither necessarily justified,nor should it be completely excluded from self-defense,but shows a dynamic relationship with self-defense and has independent criteria.As far as the latter is concerned,when some judges make guilty judgments,the“avoidance obligation”to the intended person is the“excessive reason”to squeeze the establishment space of justifiable defense,which is incompatible with the positive attribute endowed by the defense right in China.Requiring the expected infringed person to avoid has no legal basis and no legal principle and violates the human feelings,and should not be the applicable way of the infringement expectation of justifiable defense.As long as the Criminal Law insists on the positioning of justifiable defense as the legitimate rights of citizens,the obligation to avoid harming the autonomy of defense is out of the question.However,the understanding factors of defense intention and harm intention can coexist and the will factors can advance in the same direction.Therefore,the harm intention mixed with the expectation of infringement is not the exclusion factor of defense intention.As long as the de

关 键 词：正当防卫 侵害预期 防卫意图 加害意图 躲避义务 防卫自主性 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]