發(fā)布時間：2018-03-21 02:32

  本文選題：正當防衛(wèi)　切入點：對象　出處：《煙臺大學》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：刑法中正當防衛(wèi)的對象,應當細化區(qū)分為正當防衛(wèi)行為的直接作用對象——人的不法侵害行為以及正當防衛(wèi)行為導致的利益受損對象——不法侵害人的利益。當兩種防衛(wèi)對象一致時,第一,對無責任能力人的不法侵害行為可以進行正當防衛(wèi),但是出于人道主義考慮,當防衛(wèi)人明確地知道該不法侵害人是無責任能力人時,在防衛(wèi)強度上應當有所限制,否則屬于防衛(wèi)過當;第二,正當防衛(wèi)的對象不應該包括動物,但當人的不法侵害行為體現(xiàn)在動物的侵害中時,對動物進行的反擊實際上反擊的是人的不法侵害行為,依然可以成立正當防衛(wèi);第三,對于共同犯罪人中的實行犯、掌控著整個犯罪活動的組織犯、教唆犯可以成為正當防衛(wèi)的對象,事中幫助犯也可以成為正當防衛(wèi)的對象。當兩種防衛(wèi)對象不一致時,第一,侵害者利用第三人的物以及人身進行侵害,防衛(wèi)人毀損該物或傷害他人人身的行為應當認定為正當防衛(wèi);第二,對于防衛(wèi)人利用第三人之物進行防衛(wèi)的情況,應作具體的類型分別處理。第三,防衛(wèi)人利用第三人之人身進行防衛(wèi)的情況應當認定為故意傷害行為。不同于假想防衛(wèi)中“不存在不法侵害”,有許多防衛(wèi)對象發(fā)生錯誤是以存在不法侵害為前提的,只是由于防衛(wèi)人出于對象錯誤或者方法錯誤而導致第三人利益受到損害。對于這種情況不應認定為假想防衛(wèi),而應按照行為性質錯誤來進行處理。一般地說行為性質錯誤是事實錯誤,阻卻犯罪故意構成過失犯罪,但是防衛(wèi)人防衛(wèi)時對其防衛(wèi)行為是否會精準打擊不法侵害人把握不大時,如認識到可能傷及第三者合法權益,持放任態(tài)度的,則應構成間接故意犯罪。防衛(wèi)人出于緊急避險的主觀心理,但其行為起到了正當防衛(wèi)的作用,應當認定為正當防衛(wèi)。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：煙臺大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.1

【相似文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 陳茜;正當防衛(wèi)的對象研究[D];煙臺大學;2017年

，

本文編號：1641868