论我国刑法中的“保全型”自救行为  

The “Preservation Type Self-help” in China's Criminal Law

作　　者：罗雨荔 LUO Yuli(School of Law,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China)

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院,北京100084

出　　处：《东北大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第4期121-129,共9页Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science)

摘　　要：我国刑法中有保留“保全型”自救行为的余地,但不应直接照搬德国模式的理论建构。如果权利人保全手段涉及伤害、拘禁等限制、拘束义务人人身的罪名,并不需要也并不能够适用“保全型”自救行为;若相应手段涉及的是故意毁坏财物罪,当该行为确属保全权利过程中的必要行为时,在涉案金额相对权利标的额仍属轻微的情况下,可适用“保全型”自救行为。权利人以私自取走、扣押义务人财物或收集义务人个人信息的方式保全权利的案件,都有适用“保全型”自救行为阻却违法性的余地。前者依《民法典》第1 177条应以立即请求有关国家机关处理为其成立要件,后者则不应受其拘束。The “preservation type self-help” should serve as a defensive mechanism within the framework of China's criminal law,yet it should not be a direct replication of the German theory.If the means employed to safeguard the rights of obligee meet with requirements of the crime of intentional injury,illegal detention or other crimes,then the “preservation type self-help” is unnecessary and inapplicable.If the protective measures amount to the crime of intentionally damaging property,the “preservation type self-help” may still be invoked when the action is deemed necessary and the property in question is of minor value.It is necessary to admit that self-help can be applied in the cases in which the obligee takes away or distrains the property of the obligor or collects the personal information of the obligor to safeguard his rights.In the former case,the establishment of such measures should be in accordance with article 1 177 of the Civil Code,which stipulates the requirement to “immediately request court processing”.Conversely,the latter scenario should not be constrained by this stipulation.

关 键 词：自救行为 违法阻却 私力救济 权利行使 法秩序统一性 

分 类 号：D924.3[政治法律—刑法学]