“民刑法防衛過當二元論”質疑

Query on the Dualist Theory about Excessive Defense in Civil Law and Criminal Law

對民刑法上的防衛過當有各自的規範要求和評判標準的觀點應予否定。不僅實務中並不存在同一防衛行為在民刑法中被相反定性的情形，而且從理論上講，由合法性的一元論所決定，在民刑法上不應當作相反的界定，否則，在既判力問題、見義勇為及逆防衛等問題上將導致矛盾的判斷，令人無所適從。民刑法防衛過當二元論的提出，與過度解讀民刑法關於防衛過當的所謂立法差異緊密相關。但實際上，無論在民法還是刑法上，防衛過當都應當被統一解釋為：一般人無可爭議地認為，該防衛行為超過了制止不法侵害所必要的限度，並因此造成了重大損害。

It should be denied that the excessive defense in criminal law and criminal Law has different regulations and standards. On the one hand, there are not such cases in which the same defense behavior was identified inversely between civil Law and criminal law; on the other hand, it is impossible theoretically for civil law and criminal law based on monism of the legitimacy to make a definition of contradictions. Otherwise, contradictions will be inevitable in these problems such as the rechtskraft, brave act of righteousness and inverse defense, which will be confused. The dualist theory above-mentioned should be attributed to improper understanding of legislation about the excessive defense in civil law and criminal law. In fact, the excessive defense both civil law and criminal law should be unified explanation, namely, it is no doubt for the average person that the defense exceeds the necessary limits to stop the violation, and thus caused significant damage.