正當防衛界限判斷

Judgment on Boundaries of the Right of Self-Defense

10.6868/HKLR.202112_(71).03

方文宗(Wen-Tsung Fang)

正當事由 ； 被動性的行為 ； 法律允許的行為 ； 最寬容原則 ； 無罪推定原則 ； Just Cause ； Passive Behavior ； Legally Granted Behavior ； Maximum Tolerance Principle ； Presumption of Innocence

華岡法粹

71期（2021 / 12 / 01）

119 - 156

繁體中文

正當防衛法理，源自於權利保護的構想，當遭受不法侵害，公權力又無法及時保護，防衛者在緊急狀況下，被動採取防衛行為，以避免權利遭受不法侵害。防衛是否過當，必先定位正當防衛的屬性，即被動性的行為及法律允許的行為，再依具體客觀事實，判斷是否符合正當事由，行為有無過當。本文認為判斷防衛過當標準，可審查以下三點：法益權衡是否適當、防衛的手段是否適當，以及最寬容原則判斷是否過當。倘若防衛保護的法益，以及使用手段，未高於不法侵害，則屬於正當行為，若高於不法侵害，則為防衛過當。當利益衡量的思考及防衛手段的衡量思考，皆無法通過審查標準，必須以最寬容原則，檢視防衛行為是否過當，當防衛行為「有」或「無」產生懷疑，依無罪推定原則例外，認定有此防衛行為，再依客觀中立的第三者審查，判斷防衛行為有無過當，若認為防衛行為合理、適當及必要，則屬於正當行為，若認為防衛行為非合理、適當及必要，則屬於防衛過當。

The legal theory of the right of self-defense originated from the concept of the protection of rights. When an individual is unlawfully infringed upon and unable to obtain timely protection by public power, he or she, being the defender, passively takes defensive action so as to avoid unlawful infringement under emergent circumstances. However, the determination of excessive self-defense requires to clarify the nature of such behavior be passive and legally granted and if such behavior meets the criteria of just cause based on concrete and objective facts. This study suggests that the following three perspectives can be referred to as the standards for the determination of excessive self-defense: the adequacy of balance of legal interest, the appropriateness of defensive measures and the application of the maximum tolerance principle. In the event that the levels of the legal interest of defensive protection and the defensive measures taken are not higher than that of unlawful infringement, self-defense is considered as proper behavior. On the other hand, if the above said levels are higher than that of unlawful infringement, that is excessive self-defense. When neither the consideration of the balance of interests nor the consideration of defensive means passes the censorship standard, the principle of maximum tolerance should be adopted to examine whether the behavior is excessively defensive. Either ＂any doubt＂ or ＂no doubt＂ arising from defensive behavior first leads to determining the occurrence of the defensive behavior in accordance with the exception of presumption of innocence. Next, a review shall be conducted by an impartial and neutral third party to determine whether the defensive behavior is excessive. When the defensive behavior is deemed to be reasonable, appropriate, and necessary by the third party, the behavior is determined as proper behavior. If defensive behavior is deemed unreasonable, inappropriate, and unnecessary, it is determined to be excessive self-defense.

1. 周漾沂(2019)。正當防衛之法理基礎與成立界限：以法權原則為論述起點。臺大法學論叢，48(3)，1223-1278。
   連結：
2. Boazm, Sangero(2010).Heller’s Self-Defense.NEW CRIM. L. REV.,13(3),449-484.
3. Corrado, Michael Louis(2010).Professor Fontaine and Self-Defense: A Reply to His Rejoinder.AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW,47(1),105-108.
4. David, Garland S., Self-Defence, in THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF LAW (London, Northport, 1903).
5. FLETCHER, G. P.(1998).BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRIMINAL LAW.N.Y. OXFORD:
6. Gaston, E. L.(2017).Reconceptualizing Individual or Unit Self-Defense as a Combatant Privilege.HARVARD NATIONAL SECURITY JOURNAL,8,283-332.
7. Hasnas, John(2014).Lobbying and Self-Defense.GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY,12,391-412.
8. Johnson, Nicholas J.(2006).Self-Defense.JOURNAL OF LAW, ECONOMICS &POLICY,2(2),187-212.
9. Kopel, David B.,Gallant, Paul,Eisen, Joanne D.(2007).The Human Right ofSelf-Defense.BYU JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW,22(1),43-178.
10. Merriam, John J.(2010).Natural Law and Self-Defense.MILITARY LAW REVIEW,206,43-87.
11. Moore, Michael S.(2018).Steinhoff and Self-Defense.SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW,55(2),315-338.
12. Nourse, V.F.(2001).Self-Defense and Subjectivity.UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW,68(4),1235-1308.
13. Van Sambeek, Marvis J.(1988).Parricide as Self-Defense.LAW AND INEQUALITY: AJOURNAL OF THEORY AND PRACTICE,7(1),87-106.
14. Weidner, Steven A.(1966).Instructing on Self-Defense.JAG JOURNAL,21(3),79-82.
15. Willard, Ammiel J., An Examination of the Law of Personal Rights, to Discover the Principles of the Law, as Ascertained from the Practical Rules of the Law, and Harmonized with the Nature of Social Relations, in THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW (New York, D. Appleton and Co., 1882).
16. 王皇玉(2019).刑法總則.新學林出版股份有限公司.
17. 古承宗(2018)。為達（防衛）目的所需」要件。月旦法學教室，190，21-24。
18. 余振華(2017).刑法總論.三民書局股份有限公司.
19. 林山田(2008).刑法通論（上冊）.自版.
20. 林東茂(2019).刑法總則.一品文化出版社.
21. 林鈺雄(2019).新刑法總則.元照出版有限公司.
22. 柯耀程(2014).刑法釋論 I.自版.
23. 柯耀程(2017).刑法概論.一品文化出版社.
24. 柯耀程(2004)。正當防衛界線之認定。刑法問題評釋
25. 洪福增(1964).刑法之基本問題.三民書局股份有限公司.
26. 高金桂(2010)。義憤殺人罪與正當防衛－臺灣高等法院 96 年上訴字第 4489 號刑事判決。月旦裁判時報，2，118-123。
27. 高金桂(2003).利益衡量與刑法之犯罪判斷.元照出版有限公司.
28. 許恒達(2018)。正當防衛與不法侵害的現在性。月旦法學教室，185，23-25。
29. 許恒達(2016)。正當防衛與挑唆前行為。月旦刑事法評論，2，101-127。
30. 黃惠婷(2019).實用刑法總則.新學林出版股份有限公司.
31. 黃榮堅(2006).基礎刑法學（上）.元照出版有限公司.
32. 蔡墩銘(1990).刑法總則爭議問題研究.五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
33. 蔡墩銘(2005).刑法精義.翰蘆圖書出版有限公司.
34. 薛智仁(2011)。不法侵害之現在性與著手實行。台灣法學雜誌，182，182-188。
35. 薛智仁(2015)。家暴事件正當防衛難題－以趙岩冰殺夫案為中心。中研院法律學刊，16，1-70。
36. 韓忠謨(1982).刑法原理.自版.