正當防衛如何才能避免淪為僵屍條款－－以于歡故意傷害案一審判決為例的刑法教義學分析

How to Prevent the Justified Defense from Becoming Zombie Clause Criminal Law Doctrinal: Analysis on the Judgement of Yu Huan Case of Intentional Injury

正當防衛是公民行使防衛權的行為，刑法對此加以保護。我國刑法第20條第1款明文規定正當防衛不負刑事責任。在司法實踐中，如何正確劃分正當防衛與防衛過當以及一般犯罪之間的界限，是一個較為複雜的問題。于歡故意傷害案一審判決未能認定正當防衛，甚至防衛過當也未予認定，而是按照一般的故意傷害罪判處無期徒刑。該案經媒體披露以後，引起社會公眾的廣泛關注，同時也引發了刑法學界對於正當防衛制度的反思與檢討。以于歡故意傷害案的一審判決為例，從案件事實和法律適用等方面對正當防衛進行刑法教義學分析，並對司法實踐中存在的對於正當防衛的認識誤區進行反思，具有重要意義。在于歡故意傷害案的二審判決中，認定本案具有防衛情節，同時認為于歡的正當防衛超過了正當防衛的必要限度。二審判決雖然比一審判決在防衛情節的認定上有所進步，但仍然未能正確區分正當防衛與防衛過當的界限。

Justified defense is the action taken by ordinary citizens to defense their rights, which is protected by criminal law. Article 20, para 1 of Criminal Law provides that there should be no criminal liability for justified defense. In judicial practice, it is quite complex to differentiate justified defense, excessive defense and ordinary crime. The judgement of the first instance trial of Yu Huan Case did not accept the justified defense and even rejected the excessive defense, based on which Yu Huan was sentenced to life imprisonment. After being reported by the media, Yu Huan Case attracted the attention from the general public and also triggered the reflection and discussions of criminal law scholars. This article makes doctrinal analysis of justified defense from the perspectives of fact and law and reflects the misunderstanding of Chinese judiciary on the issue of justified defense by referring to the judgement of the first instance trial of Yu Huan Case. The judgement of the second instance trial of Yu Huan Case concluded that the defense of Yu Huan was excessive. Though the judgement of the second instance trial is better than the first judgement in term of the circumstances of justified defense, it still failed to distinguish the justified defense and excessive defense.