为有效保护民众“头顶上的安全”，2021年3月1日开始实施的《刑法修正案（十一）》增设了高空抛物罪。本罪的增设虽然在一定程度上实现了合理的法定刑配置，但是在适用过程中仍有一些问题需要解决。因此，本文首先对高空抛物罪的立法过程进行了梳理，分析了增设高空抛物罪的正当化基础。增设高空抛物罪是基于高空抛物现象日益频发、社会危害性日益严重的现实需求。增设该罪是弥补民事、行政治理手段不足及刑法处罚漏洞的内在要求，有助于保护法益、贯彻罪刑法定及实现罪责刑相适应，具有正当性。

从上述结论出发，本文对高空抛物的罪名体系进行了分析。高空抛物的罪名体系包括基础类型和竞合类型。基础类型中包括高空抛物罪和以危险方法危害公共安全罪，二者是一般法和特别法的关系。竞合类型是高空抛物行为造成具体损害结果时与其他罪名产生想象竞合的情形。作为整个罪名体系的核心，高空抛物罪是情节犯，罪状中的“情节严重”不是独立的构成要件要素，而是用以描述主客观构成要件要素的严重程度。情节严重的明确化可以通过司法实践中具体情形的类型化得以实现。从犯罪分类的角度，本文认为高空抛物罪是法定犯、行为犯、抽象危险犯，其中“高空”和“物”的界定，实际属于危险的判断，司法实践中可以通过具体危险说结合实际案例个别判断。此外，高空抛物罪是故意犯罪，“动机”是该罪值得重视的量刑要素。

基于上述分析，本文对高空抛物罪的司法实践状况进行了研究。对北大法宝的案例样本进行的分析表明，高空抛物案件的犯罪起因主要是醉酒发泄情绪、贪图便利和吵架发泄情绪，行为人的再犯可能性较小。造成损害结果的案件不足总样本的一半，可以推知司法实践中并不是以实际损害结果作为定罪的依据。高空抛物罪的刑罚设置以自由刑和罚金刑并科为主，预防刑偏重。此外，司法实践中存在说理混乱和溯及力适用不当的问题。面对说理混乱的现象，司法人员应当就高空抛物罪的“情节严重”进行重点阐明；在竞合问题时也应当阐明争议焦点和立场观点。溯及适用不当，本质上是没有理清罪名竞合问题。解决该问题时应当重视高空抛物犯罪的竞合类型，正确坚持从旧兼从轻原则，对《刑法修正案（十一）》生效前实施的不足以危害公共安全且没有造成具体损害结果的高空抛物行为，应当以无罪处理；符合刑法第114条构成要件的，应当认定为以危险方法危害公共安全罪。对于实践中溯及力适用错误的案件，理想状况是通过审判监督程序进行纠偏，不能实现时可以通过刑罚进行矫正。

Amendment (XI) to the Criminal Law of P.R.C that came into force on 1 March 2021 added the offence of throwing objects from height to effectively protect people's "overhead safety". Although the addition of this offence has achieved a reasonable allocation of statutory penalties to a certain extent, there are still some problems that need to be clarified in the application of this offence. Therefore, this thesis firstly sorts out the legislative process of throwing objects from height and analyses the basis for justifying the addition of this offence. The addition of this offence is based on the increasing frequency of throwing objects from height and the seriousness of the social danger. The addition of this offence is an inherent requirement to make up for the inadequacy of civil and administrative means of governance and to make up for the penalty loopholes in criminal law, and it is justified as it helps to protect the legal interests, implement the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime and realize the compatibility of offence and punishment.

From the above conclusions, this thesis analyses the offence system of throwing objects from height. The offence system of throwing objects from height includes the basic type and the competing type. The basic type includes the offence of throwing objects from height and the offence of endangering public safety by dangerous means, which are related to the general law and the special law. The competing type refers to the situation that the act of throwing objects from height causes specific damage which concurrently constitutes any other offence. As the core of the entire offence system, the offence of throwing objects from height is a plot offence. The expression "serious circumstances" in the offence of throwing objects from height is not an independent constituent element, but rather describes the severity of subjective and objective constituent elements. The clarification of serious circumstances can be achieved through the typification of specific situations in judicial practice. From the perspective of offence classification, the offence of throwing objects from height is a statutory offence, a behavioural offence and an abstract potential damage offence. The definition of "aerial" and "things", actually belongs to the judgment of the danger which can be judged individually in actual case through the specific danger theory. In addition, the offence of throwing objects from height is an intentional offence, and "motive" is an important element of sentencing for this offence.

Based on the above analysis, this thesis studies the state of judicial practice in the offence of throwing objects from height. The analysis of the sample of cases from the Magic Weapon of Peking University indicates that the causes of the offence of throwing objects from height are mainly drunkenness to vent emotions, greed for convenience and quarrels to vent emotions, and the possibility of recidivism is low. The cases causing injury results are less than half of the total sample, so it can be inferred that the actual injury results are not the basis for conviction in judicial practice. The penalties for the offence of throwing objects from height are set with a combination of liberty and fine sentence, and the prevention punishment is heavier. In addition, judicial practice suffers from confusing reasoning and improper application of retroactivity. To solve the problem of confusing reasoning, it is necessary for the judicial officers to clarify the seriousness of the circumstances of the crime and clarify the focus of dispute as well as position in the case of competing issues. The inappropriate retrospective application is essentially a failure to clarify the issue of competing offence. To solve the problem, the competing issues should be clarified first, and the principle of old and mitigating should be correctly adhered. Acts of throwing objects from height which were not sufficient to endanger public safety and did not result in specific damage before Amendment (XI) to the Criminal Law comes into force shall be treated as innocent. If acts of throwing objects from height which committed before the Amendment (XI) to the Criminal Law comes into force constituted the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means, it shall still be recognized as such crime. For cases where retroactive application is wrong in practice, the ideal situation is to rectify the situation through trial supervision procedures, and when this cannot be achieved, correction can be made through penalties.