摘要： 经实证考察，司法实践在判断防卫限度时标准不一，主要采用以“明显超过必要限度”“造成重大损害”为基准的二元构成条件和以“明显超过必要限度”为基准的一元构成条件。在界定重大损害时，仅将人身损害作为评价指标，并且普遍以“相当于一人重伤”作为认定起点。在评价必要限度时，倾向于关注个别要素，欠缺综合考量和情境判断，更强调防卫者将损害结果控制在最低程度。针对司法实践中的认知偏差，应当确立以并列说为基础的二元构成条件，同时把防卫限度分解为行为限度和结果限度，防卫过当必须是行为和结果双重过当。在评价结果限度时，财产损失应纳入考量范畴，轻伤在一定条件下也能成立重大损害。行为限度的评价基准当采用必需说，并且要坚持综合考量原则，以“防卫人所属的一般人”进行事前判断。

关键词: 防卫限度, 明显超过必要限度, 重大损害, 必需说, 量化分析

Abstract: After empirical investigation, there are different standards for evaluating defense limit in judicial practice, which mainly adopts the two constitutions based on“obviously exceed the necessary limit”and“cause significant damage”and the one constitution based on“obviously exceed the necessary limit”.When defining significant damage, only personal injury is used as an evaluation index, and“equivalent to one person seriously injured”is generally regarded as the starting point.When evaluating necessary limit, it tends to focus on individual elements and emphasizes that the defender should keep the damage result to a minimum, lacking overall consideration and situational judgment.In order to correct the cognitive deviation in judicial practice, it should adopt the two constitutions based on“coordinate theory”.According to that, defense limit can be decomposed into behavior limit and result limit, and excessive defense must negate both of them at the same time.When evaluating the result limit, property loss should be taken into consideration, and“slight injury”maybe establish significant damage under certain conditions.In judging the behavior limit, it should adopt“necessary theory”and adhere the principle of overall consideration, with the standpoint of“the general person to whom the defender belongs”for a prejudgment.

Key words: Defense Limit, Necessary Limit, Significant Damage, Necessary Theory, Quantitative Analysis