北京八达岭野生动物园老虎伤人事件引起了社会的热烈讨论，实际上，在司法实践中行为人自我招致风险的案件并不少见，但仍没有通用的法规来规范此种情形下行为结果实现的责任划分该如何分析和认定。本文研究的自我招致风险是指自然人明知风险的存在，自愿做出让自己置身于此风险的行为并造成了刑法上的严重损害后果，从而引起刑事责任的情形。相对于其他形态的主体，自然人形态是在刑事犯罪中作为行为主体最多也是最主要的，故本文研究自我招致风险问题时以自然人为研究对象。 自我招致风险的情形主要有如下几个特征：第一，行为人主观上认识到风险的存在并知道自己的行为可能导致风险。第二，行为人客观上自愿地实施了风险制造行为。第三，行为对其自身造成实害性后果。第四，行为人是有刑事责任能力的自然人。由于行为双方在事件发展和最终结果中都会发挥作用，故在此将双方置于平等的位置进行分别讨论。 自我招致风险从导致风险的主要因素可分为自我危险化、因他人行为自我招致风险和因综合行为自我招致风险三类，其中自我风险化又可分为因不法行为自我招致风险和因合法行为自我招致风险两类。 因先前不法行为自我招致风险的情形下，笔者认可依照自我负责原则归责，因其承认了自我招致风险的行为中行为双方的客观评价地位，在复合法益的情况下，可以运用优势法益说，参照多个法益在刑法中具体在哪个章节来确定更重要更占据主要地位的客体，结合法律制定的实际目的和客观情况进行归责。 因合法行为自我招致风险的情形下，本文主张依照刑法规定进行处理，如果行为双方存在一定的义务瑕疵或涉及民事权利义务，可以依据义务完成的情况和对行为最终结果的影响，按法律规定承担相应的民事责任。 因他人行为自我招致风险的情形下，通过被害人共同责任理论解决刑事归责问题，且一般情形下行为的内容和行为人的权限或义务上有主次、先后之分，可以在进行归责时进行更细致的划分。 因综合因素自我招致风险的情形下，可运用客观归责理论结合相当因果关系的有关内容综合分析，在多个因素效力判断的过程中，运用相当因果关系进行综合分析，通过将主观的经验判断融入到客观的因果关系当中，抽离出风险结果发生的最主要的因素，以更准确地分配责任。

Due to the incident of tiger injuring people at the Badaling Wild Animal Park in Beijing, it is not uncommon for the perpetrators to incur risks in the judicial practice. However, there are still no established laws and regulations that govern how to identify, identify and practice them. The self-inflicted risk studied in this paper refers to the situation in which natural persons are aware of the existence of risk and voluntarily commit themselves to being exposed to this risk and cause serious damage consequences in the criminal law, thereby causing criminal liability. Compared with other forms of the subject, the natural person form is the most and most important subject in the criminal offense. Therefore, in this paper, the study of self-incurred risk is based on natural human subjects. The self-incurred risks mainly have the following characteristics: First, the actors subjectively recognize the existence of risks and know that their actions may lead to risks. Second, the perpetrator voluntarily implemented risky manufacturing practices. Third, behavior has its own practical consequences. Fourth, the actor is a natural person with criminal responsibility. Since the two sides of the behavior will play a role in the development of the incident and the final outcome, the two sides will be placed in an equal position to discuss separately. Self-incurred risks can be classified into self-risk factors, self-inflicted risks due to others' behaviors, and self-incurred risks due to comprehensive behaviors. The self-risk can be divided into self-risk and self-inflicted risk due to legal actions. In the case of self-incurred of risk due to previous wrongdoing, the author holds that the liability should be attributed in accordance with the principle of self-responsibility. Because the self-responsibility principle acknowledges the objective evaluation status of both parties in the act of incurring self-risk. When there are multiple legal interests, the priority theory can be applied. Depending on their location in the Criminal Code, the priority of the legal interests can be determined. The liability can, therefore, be attributed according to the goal of legislation and the facts of the cases. In the case of self-incurred of risk due to legal acts, the liability should be attributed according to the criminal law. If the parties have certain obligations or involve civil rights and obligations, they can assume corresponding civil liabilities according to the law, depending on the circumstances of the completion of the obligations and the impact on the final result of the act. In the case of self-incurred of risk due to others' behavior, joint responsibility theory should be applied. Usually, the content, authority, and obligation of duties are divided into primary and secondary ones, which can act as detailed criteria when attributing criminal liability. In the case of self-incurred of risk due to mixed behavior, objective imputation, along with the adequate causation should be adopted. Subjective criteria should be incorporated into the objective causation to make a more accurate attribution.