正当防卫的对象研究

发布时间：2018-03-21 02:32

本文选题：正当防卫　切入点：对象　出处：《烟台大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：刑法中正当防卫的对象,应当细化区分为正当防卫行为的直接作用对象——人的不法侵害行为以及正当防卫行为导致的利益受损对象——不法侵害人的利益。当两种防卫对象一致时,第一,对无责任能力人的不法侵害行为可以进行正当防卫,但是出于人道主义考虑,当防卫人明确地知道该不法侵害人是无责任能力人时,在防卫强度上应当有所限制,否则属于防卫过当;第二,正当防卫的对象不应该包括动物,但当人的不法侵害行为体现在动物的侵害中时,对动物进行的反击实际上反击的是人的不法侵害行为,依然可以成立正当防卫;第三,对于共同犯罪人中的实行犯、掌控着整个犯罪活动的组织犯、教唆犯可以成为正当防卫的对象,事中帮助犯也可以成为正当防卫的对象。当两种防卫对象不一致时,第一,侵害者利用第三人的物以及人身进行侵害,防卫人毁损该物或伤害他人人身的行为应当认定为正当防卫;第二,对于防卫人利用第三人之物进行防卫的情况,应作具体的类型分别处理。第三,防卫人利用第三人之人身进行防卫的情况应当认定为故意伤害行为。不同于假想防卫中“不存在不法侵害”,有许多防卫对象发生错误是以存在不法侵害为前提的,只是由于防卫人出于对象错误或者方法错误而导致第三人利益受到损害。对于这种情况不应认定为假想防卫,而应按照行为性质错误来进行处理。一般地说行为性质错误是事实错误,阻却犯罪故意构成过失犯罪,但是防卫人防卫时对其防卫行为是否会精准打击不法侵害人把握不大时,如认识到可能伤及第三者合法权益,持放任态度的,则应构成间接故意犯罪。防卫人出于紧急避险的主观心理,但其行为起到了正当防卫的作用,应当认定为正当防卫。
[Abstract]:The object of justifiable defense in criminal law, It should be divided into the direct action object of legitimate defense behavior, the illegal infringement of human beings, and the interest damaged object of legitimate defense behavior-the interests of illegal aggressors. When the two defense objects are the same, first, It can be justified to defend the illegal infringement of the person without the capacity of responsibility, but for humanitarian reasons, when the defender knows clearly that the wrongdoer is an incompetent person, the defense intensity should be limited. Otherwise, it is too defensive; second, the object of legitimate defense should not include animals, but when the illegal act of human aggression is reflected in the animal aggression, the counterattack on the animal is actually the illegal infringement of the human being. Self-defense can still be established; third, for the perpetrators of joint criminals, who control the whole criminal activity, the abettor can become the object of legitimate defense. Aiding offenders can also be the objects of legitimate defense. When the two defense objects are not identical, first, the aggressor uses the objects of the third person and the person to commit an attack. The act of damaging the object or harming the person of the other person shall be regarded as legitimate defense by the defender; second, the situation in which the defender uses the property of the third person for defense should be dealt with separately by specific types. Third, The situation in which a defender uses the person of a third person to defend himself should be regarded as intentional injury. Different from "there is no unlawful infringement" in hypothetical defense, there are many defense objects whose premise is the existence of unlawful infringement. The interests of the third party are only damaged by the fact that the defender has caused harm to the interests of the third party by mistake of object or method. In such a case, it should not be considered as hypothetical defence, It should be dealt with according to the nature of the act. Generally speaking, the nature of the act is a mistake of fact, preventing the crime from deliberately constituting a negligent crime, but when the defender defends himself or not, he does not have a good grasp of whether or not his defence action will accurately attack the wrongdoer. If it is recognized that the legitimate rights and interests of a third party may be injured and laissez-faire, it should constitute an indirect intentional crime.
【学位授予单位】：烟台大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.1

【相似文献】