從個人保護原則重構正當防衛

Reconstructing Self Defense from Individual Protection Principle

本文討論刑法正當防衛阻卻違法的實質理由，以及與正當防衛相關連的法律效果。有別於通說主張正當防衛同時保護受害者及法秩序，筆者認為正當防衛只保護受不法攻擊的個人，侵害者必須退讓部分法益於法秩序的保護範圍之外，容任防衛者反擊，筆者稱之為「部分法益懸置說」，至於其懸置範圍，應從不法侵害的強度判斷，從而形成類優越利益的審查要素，並應以之作為防衛手段在適當性、必要性以外的第三項合法要件：類優越利益關係。基於以上的個人保護原則觀點，本文進一步考量正當防衛的若干法律效果，並提出具體看法：（一）由於原侵害者法益已被部分懸置，故防衛者不負任何退避義務；（二）正當防衛的四類社會倫理限制中，除了挑唆防衛之外，並不足以改變防衛者積極反擊的法律效力；（三）第三人緊急救助時，原侵害者基於社會連帶義務，必須接納一般正當防衛法律效果同樣適用於第三人防衛所帶來的侵害。

This article aims to analyze the justification of self defense in criminal law as well as its effects. Other than the generally accepted view point that argues: “defender protects himself and legal order at the same time”, the author proposes a new idea: defender merely safeguards himself without protecting the order of law. The offender should waive partial protection of law while he tries to illegally damage the defender. As for the range of waived interests of offender, it is supposed to be in accordance to the severity of illegal offense. This view point can be named as “Partial Waiver of Defender’s Interests Theory.” In this regard, , the author further discusses the legal issues relevant to self defense as follows (1) The defender has no obligation to escape or take milder measure for his protection due to the legal protection of offender’s interests has been waived; (2) However, as the defender intentionaly provokes the circumstances of self defense, he shall try to escape. Only if the escape from the spot is no more possible, the defender is entiteld to take milder defensive measures to protect himself. (3) The offender has the solidarity obligation to endure the invasion arising from the third party who aims to help the victim protect his interests.