正當防衛中法益侵害急迫性的存立根據與司法認定

正當防衛制度是法治國家原則上禁止私力救濟的例外，該制度本身應當具備“嚴進寬出”的刑事政策功能。從基本權國家保護義務論出發，防衛權的發動應同時滿足不足禁止與過度禁止這兩個原則的要求。在規範論上，法益侵害的急迫性為正當防衛作為強許可提供了排他性理由。法益侵害急迫性與防衛限度是事前判斷與事後判斷的關係，防衛限度被限制在法益侵害急迫性所可能實現的侵害結果的範圍內。在法益侵害急迫性的判斷上，我國《刑法》第20條第3款規定的無過當防衛設置了急迫性的最高程度，同時也是發動防衛權的最低底線，除此之外的事由是否足以發動作為排他性許可的防衛權，應以防衛人與侵害人之間的關係為核心，對法益侵害的急迫性進行事前判斷。

Since justified defense system is an exception to the prohibition of private enforcement in the principles held by a country under the rule of law, the system itself should perform the criminal policy function of ''strict entry and lenient exit''. Starting from the theory of the state’s protection obligation of fundamental rights, the exercises of defense right should meet the requirements of the two principles of insufficient prohibition and excessive prohibition. From the perspective of normative theory, the urgency of the infringement of legal interests provides self-defense with the exclusive reason. The urgency of the infringement of legal interests and limit of defense are the relation between prejudgment and the judgment after the event. The limit of defense is within the scope of the possible results of the urgency of the infringement of legal interests. Regarding the judgment of the urgency of infringement of legal interests, the third paragraph of Article 20 of China’s Criminal Law sets the highest degree of the urgency of the excessive defense and the lowest baseline for exercising the right of defense. It should be based on the relationship between defender and infringer and the prejudgment of the urgency of the infringement of legal interests whether other factors are sufficient to exercise the right of defense as an exclusive reason.