緊急避險的體系再定位研究

Research on the Repositioning of Emergency Action System

無論是功利主義思想還是社會連帶主義，均無法合理地說明緊急避險的正當性基礎。功利主義漠視個人的主體價值，社會連帶思想無法清楚切割道德義務與法義務，二者均無法整合在以保護個人自由為宗旨的刑法秩序中。攻擊性緊急避險不應當定位在阻卻違法性階層，而應視具體情境審查是否具有成立寬恕（減免）罪責的可能，這與我國《刑法》第21條的規定並不矛盾。將攻擊性緊急避險定位於罪責階層的實益在於：受法益侵害的無辜第三人沒有必須消極忍受被攻擊的義務，而是可以對緊急避險者進行正當防衛；唆使或幫助他人實施緊急避險屬於參與他人的不法行為，惡意唆使與幫助者具有可罰性；避險者必須對於由避險行為引起的被避險者的法益危險及時進行救助，否則要承擔不作為的責任。

Both utilitarianism and Solidarism, were unable to reasonably explain the legitimacy foundation of emergency actions. Utilitarianism disregards for the main body of personal value, meanwhile social joint thoughts cannot clearly incise the moral obligation and the legal duty, both of them cannot be integrated in the Criminal Law order which aims to protect the personal freedom. Aggressive emergency action should not be positioned in the obstruction of illegality, but should examine whether has set up the possibility of forgiveness (relief) guilt according to specific situation, which does not conflict with the provisions of Article 21 of the Criminal Law in our country. The benefit of positioning aggressive emergency action in the responsibility for an offense class is: The innocent third party whose legal interest is violated is under no obligation to bear the attacked duty negatively, but can defend for himself to emergency actions; Abetting or helping others to implement emergency actions belongs to participation in the legal actions of others, malicious instigator and helper should be punished; Hedger must rescue the innocent third party in time, otherwise he should assume the responsibility of inaction.