正当防卫制度是我国刑法中一项十分独特的制度，它体现了公力救济权与私力救济权（即国家暴力垄断与私人暴力行使）以及防卫人利益与不法侵害人利益（即保护防卫人利益与防止防卫权滥用）之间的博弈。这些利益之间的融合与冲突，构建了正当防卫制度的基础性理论问题，对正当防卫的认定标准有着潜移默化的影响。一方面，正当防卫作为一种私力救济，是人类的自然权利。国家产生以后，私力救济逐渐让位于公力救济，法律成为定分止争的工具。维护以法律为基础构建的社会秩序，实现公力救济与私力救济之间的平衡成为各国刑法规定正当防卫制度的设立目标。我国刑法专门设立正当防卫制度，其意义就在于通过法律赋予了公民在公力救济难以及时介入的情形下得以行使私力救济的权利。但是，从我国的司法实践来看，我国的正当防卫制度过于强调“公力救济优先”，这其中涉及两个问题：一是保障国家暴力垄断权的权威性，二是维护社会秩序的稳定性（即维稳思维）。另一方面，正当防卫制度的背后反映着防卫人利益与不法侵害人利益的冲突与对抗。正当防卫制度的设立初衷就在于，通过制度的建立以及法律的实施，既要做到保护防卫人的合法利益，鼓励、支持与引导防卫人运用私力救济权保护自身合法权益，又要做到保护侵害人的利益，防止防卫人滥用私人救济权导致侵害人遭受明显重大损害。从我国正当防卫制度的立法变迁来看，我国逐步强化对正当防卫权的刑法保护，秉承着鼓励公民正确运用正当防卫的法律武器与不法侵害行为作斗争的立法理念。但是，立法理念能否得到贯彻还需对司法实践的情况进行考察。从我国当前的司法实践来看，司法机关对正当防卫的成立把握过严，保护防卫人利益的立法理念没有得到很好贯彻。近年来，司法机关通过一系列个案对正当防卫制度的适用进行了大力纠偏，在一定程度上激活了正当防卫制度的适用。但是，从一些个案的具体处理情况来看，存在着过分强调保护防卫人利益的现象，对于这一现象值得反思与警惕。

总体而言，我国正当防卫制度的司法适用存在着严重的利益失衡现象。这些现象可以从正当防卫的起因条件、时间条件、对象条件、目的条件和限度条件中体现出来。在起因条件中，正当防卫的利益失衡表现为通过限制不法侵害的性质、限制不法侵害的场合和限制不法侵害的程度来否定正当防卫的起因条件。按照我国刑法理论通说，正当防卫的起因条件是存在着“正在进行”的不法侵害，由于“正在进行”的含义可以做出多个角度的理解，故此处不法侵害的范围较为广泛。但是，在面对单纯针对财产权利的不法侵害、针对人身自由权利的不法侵害或者针对人身安全权利但侵害程度不高的不法侵害时，司法机关在处理时通常会以“不具有侵害紧迫性”为由否定正当防卫的成立。在面对不法侵害人非法侵入住宅、不法侵害人实施一般挑衅、出于生活纠纷或事出有因的不法侵害时，司法机关在处理时通常会以“不法侵害人存在过错”为由否定正当防卫的成立，甚至将防卫行为认定为“互相斗殴”。在司法实践中，还存在着司法机关虽然承认不法侵害的存在，但要求不法侵害达到一定的严重程度的现象，排除了轻微违法行为成立正当防卫的可能性。在时间条件中，正当防卫的利益失衡表现为限制“正在进行”的含义。按照我国刑法理论，正当防卫的时间条件是不法侵害正在进行，排除事前防卫与事后防卫。但是，在司法实践中，司法机关要么是将“正在进行”等同于“紧迫性”，刻板地要求不法侵害行为应当处于“正在进行”之后，行为人实施的反击行为必须发生在不法侵害已经开始实施后；要么是在“正在进行”之外附加“紧迫性”的要求，在可以选择其他救济手段时，不得使用暴力反击行为。在对象条件中，正当防卫的利益失衡表现为限制防卫对象的范围。按照我国刑法理论，正当防卫的对象条件是实施不法侵害的人，理应包括每一个实施共同犯罪的人。但是，在司法实践中，司法机关要求防卫行为必须针对正在实施不法侵害的人，否定其他共同犯罪人可以作为防卫对象。此外，司法机关在判断对无刑事责任能力人是否能够行使正当防卫时，存在立场摇摆的问题。在主观条件中，正当防卫的利益失衡表现为限缩防卫意识的要件，即主观方面的要件。按照我国刑法理论，正当防卫的主观条件是实施防卫行为时必须具有正当的防卫意图，即对“正在进行的不法侵害”的防卫认识以及对“保护合法权益”的防卫意志。但是，在司法实践中，在面对行为人有预见可能性、行为人预先准备了反击工具、行为人有退避可能性、行为人能够求助第三方、行为人之间存在争执或纠纷时，司法机关在处理时通常会以行为人具有“伤害故意”或者具有躲避义务，否定正当防卫成立的主观条件。在限度条件中，正当防卫的利益失衡表现为限缩防卫限度的标准。按照我国刑法理论，正当防卫的限度条件划分为两类，即防卫行为限度条件以及防卫结果限度条件，行为限度的要求是“不能超过必要限度”，而结果限度的要求是“未造成明显重大损害”，即无论是防卫行为要件，还是防卫结果要件必须均符合上述要求，才能认定该行为的限度条件具有正当性。但是，在具体的司法实践中，司法机关往往会从防卫结果切入，忽略了防卫行为的重要性。

我国正当防卫制度的适用之所以存在着严重的利益失衡现象，主要在于正当防卫涉及防卫人、不法侵害人与国家的三方冲突，司法机关在处理正当防卫案件时存在司法立场摇摆以及司法逻辑混乱的问题，司法立场摇摆是为实质问题，司法逻辑混乱是为形式问题。在解决这一问题需要从正当防卫的原理入手，探索不同视角下三方冲突的解决机制，从而理清正当防卫原理之间存在的逻辑性以及正当防卫各个条件之间存在的层次性。

从当前刑法学界的争论现状来看，正当防卫的原理主要包括个人保全原理、法的确证原理和利益衡量原理。这三个原理并不完美，各自具有相应的问题，同时对正当防卫的成立条件发挥着不同的功能。个人保全原理是指法律允许个人为了保护自身合法权益采取各种必要的手段。该原理存在的问题是不能说明为了第三人的利益实施正当防卫具有正当性，也不能说明防卫行为受到比例原则的限制，同时不符合我国为了保护国家利益与公共利益实施正当防卫的规定。但是，该原理具有四个功能：一是能够为正当防卫的起因条件提供法理依据，我国刑法虽然规定为了保护国家利益与公共利益可以实施正当防卫，但是我国并不允许单纯为了保护国家利益与公共利益而实施防卫，只要涉及个人利益时才允许实施防卫。二是能够为正当防卫的对象条件提供法理依据，尤其是对于动物与无刑事责任能力人允许进行正当防卫，需要首先从保护个人权益出发。三是能够为正当防卫的时间条件提供法理依据，原则上正当防卫行为只能是针对“正在进行”的不法侵害才能够实施，法的确证原理能够为事前防卫和事后防卫提供法理依据，但不符合我国刑法规定，正当防卫的时间条件只能从个人保全原理中寻找。四是能够为正当防卫的行为限度（即防卫必要性）提供法理依据，个人保全原理允许面对正在进行的不法侵害，防卫人不负有“躲避义务”，且防卫结果方面也有苛刻的要求，防卫行为所造成的损害结果可以大于不法侵害行为所造成的损害结果，同时站在防卫人的视角，选择损害最小的防卫行为。个人保全原理的上述功能是法的确证原理与利益衡量原理所不可替代的。法的确证原理是指正当防卫维护了法秩序而合法化。该原理存在的问题是不能说明法确证的利益的实质性内容，法的确证原理内部存在“循环论证”的嫌疑。但是，该原理具有两个功能：一是能够为个人保全原理的功能做出必要补充。不同于个人保全原理的扩张正当防卫权的功能，法的确证原理的功能在于限制正当防卫权，其作用点不在于正当防卫的行为限度（即防卫必要性），而在于正当防卫的结果限度（即防卫相当性）。利益衡量原理（即优越利益原理）是指防卫人的利益优于不法侵害人的利益，因而正当防卫具有合法性。该原理存在的问题是利益衡量原理内部存在“循环论证”的嫌疑，在论证方面混淆了事实判断与规范判断之间的关联结构。但是，该原理具有的功能是：有利于提醒法官提前关注重大的利益失衡的情形。无论哪一派刑法理论都允许侵害利益和保护利益之间在一定范围内失衡，但不允许存在重大利益失衡的情形，因此需要对利益进行实质性的衡量，决定了防卫相当性。尤其是对不法侵害行为程度轻微，但防卫结果与侵害结果不成比例的场合，需要借助利益衡量原理。

根据上述分析，个人保全原理与法的确证原理相结合的正当防卫二元论与利益衡量原理之间存在阶层关系。正当防卫二元论作为正当防卫的正当化根据值得提倡，这是因为正当防卫二元论能够限定正当防卫成立的客观判断标准。个人保全原理决定了侵害紧迫性和防卫必要性，功能在于扩张正当防卫权，而法的确证原理则起到相应补充作用，功能在于限缩正当防卫权，对正当防卫的适用范围进行社会伦理限制。二者各有分工，功能不同。与此同时，利益衡量原理与正当防卫二元论关系密切，正当防卫二元论离不开利益衡量原理，利益衡量原理亦无法独立说明正当防卫的正当化根据，只能诉诸于更高层次的理论。因此，正当防卫二元论与利益衡量原理需要相互配合，区分层次。从正当防卫二元论的功能与利益位阶来看，相对于利益衡量原理，正当防卫二元论处于上位概念，而法益衡量原理处于下位概念。与之相对，在认定正当防卫时，需要先满足正当防卫二元论的要求，进而满足法益衡量原理的要求，才能认为该防卫行为具有正当性。即正当防卫二元论划定了允许实施防卫行为的客观条件，包括侵害紧迫性和防卫必要性，而利益衡量原理划定了防卫行为的限度条件，主要是指防卫相当性。

我国刑法理论认定正当防卫的成立条件采用的是平面化的判断体系。在这种判断体系下，正当防卫的认定要素可以随意添加或改变顺序，甚至出现重复适用的情形。主要表现为忽略了正当防卫各个成立条件之间的层次性与功能性，从而导致正当防卫的司法逻辑存在偏差。具体包括两个方面：一是起因条件旨在限定不法侵害的范围，即哪些不法侵害行为可以作为正当防卫适用的范围。只要在满足了起因条件后，才可以进而判断正当防卫的其他条件，而不能够再以“不具有防卫紧迫性”否定其他条件的成立。二是限度条件旨在判断防卫行为与防卫结果的限度，即防卫必要性与防卫相当性。只要在满足了起因、时间、主观、对象条件后，才能判断防卫必要性与防卫相当性，而不能将防卫必要性放在主观条件与时间条件中进行判定。具体而言，正当防卫成立条件平面化主要表现为“侵害紧迫性”、“防卫必要性”与“防卫相当性”的逻辑错位。在“侵害紧迫性”方面，主要体现为：一是在“侵害紧迫性”与起因条件的关系上，存在的问题是“侵害紧迫性”作为不法侵害的认定要素在正当防卫成立的各个条件中存在叠加现象，即在承认存在不法侵害的同时，又附加“紧迫性”要件对不法侵害的范围进行限缩；在以“紧迫性”认定不法侵害后，又以“紧迫性”否定防卫意图、防卫时间、防卫限度。二是在“侵害紧迫性”与时间条件的关系上，存在的问题是“侵害紧迫性”与时间条件相混同，也就是说将“侵害紧迫性”等同于“正在进行”的含义，二者几乎等同，不法侵害行为的实施时间实际上与防卫行为的实施时间并不能做到完全一致。在“防卫必要性”方面，主要体现为：一是在认定具有防卫必要性之后，又附加“躲避义务”要件对防卫必要性的防卫进行限缩。二是“防卫必要性”与“防卫相当性”存在混同，过于关注防卫结果限度（即防卫相当性）而忽略了“防卫必要性”。在“防卫相当性”方面，主要体现为“防卫必要性”与“防卫相当性”的逻辑顺序存在错位，应当在判断该防卫行为满足了防卫必要性后，才能判断是否满足了防卫相当性，司法实践中往往出现相反的情况。

为了实现从解决正当防卫利益失衡的形式问题到追求正当防卫利益平衡的实质问题，需要对正当防卫的成立条件进行阶层化改造，在厘清正当防卫的裁判逻辑的基础上，寻求私力救济权与公力救济权、防卫人利益与侵害人利益的平衡。正当防卫成立条件的认定需要经过三个层次的判断：第一层次的“侵害紧迫性”判断。“侵害紧迫性”是对不法侵害的整体反应，也是不法侵害的本质属性，只要该行为属于正当防卫中不法侵害的范围，就可以直接认定该行为具有“侵害紧迫性”，这就需要对不法侵害的范围进行提前界定。这种做法可以实现不法侵害范围的实质性扩张，而不是限制不法侵害范围。第二层次的“防卫必要性”判断。“防卫必要性”排除“躲避义务”的存在，而且“防卫必要性”旨在考察防卫行为的限度。对此，“防卫必要性”的认定需要综合考察各种客观因素，是对事前危险的预测，是对防卫行为本身进行评价，需要遵循客观归责原则。第三层次的“防卫相当性”判断。“防卫相当性”是对法益衡量的实质性判断，而且“防卫相当性”旨在考察防卫结果的限度。对此，“防卫相当性”的认定需要进行利益位阶判断，需要对防卫结果进行整体判断。

The justifiable defense system is a very unique system in China's criminal law, which embodies the right of public relief and private relief (national violent monopoly and private violence exercise) and the interests of defenders and unlawful infringements (protect the interests of defenders and to prevent the abuse of defense rights). The fusion and conflict between these interests constitutes the basic theoretical issue of the legitimate defense system, which has a subtle influence on the criteria for the identification of legitimate defense. On the one hand, legitimate defense is a natural right for human beings as a kind of private relief. Since the birth of the state, the right of private relief has gradually given way to the right of public relief, and the law has become a tool for delimiting disputes. Maintaining the social order built on the basis of the law and achieving the balance between the right of public relief and the right of private relief have become the goals of the legitimate defense system prescribed by the criminal laws of various countries. The Chinese Criminal Law specifically created a system of legitimate defense, which means that the law gives citizens the right to exercise private relief when public relief is difficult to intervene. However, judging from China's judicial practice, China's legitimate defense system places too much emphasis on the the right of public relief which has priority. This situation involves two issues: one is to protect the authority of the country's violent monopoly, and the other is to maintain the stability of social order (consideration of maintaining stability). On the other hand, the legitimate defense system reflects the conflict and confrontation between the interests of defenders and those of perpetrators. The original intention of the establishment of a legitimate defense system is that the establishment of the system and the implementation of laws should not only protect the legitimate interests of the defenders, but also encourage, support and guide the defenders to use private relief rights to protect their legitimate rights and interests. At the same time, it is necessary to protect the interests of the perpetrators and prevent the defenders from abusing the right of private relief, which will cause the perpetrators to suffer obvious and significant damage. From the analysis of the legislative evolution of China ’s legitimate defense system, China is gradually strengthening the criminal law protection of the right of legitimate defense. The legislative idea adhering to it is to encourage citizens to correctly use the legal weapon of legitimate defense to fight against criminal acts. However, whether the legislative concept can be implemented still needs to be investigated on the situation of judicial practice. Judging from the current judicial practice in China, the judiciary has overly strict standards for the establishment of proper defense, and the legislative concept of protecting the interests of defenders has not been well implemented. In recent years, the judiciary has vigorously rectified the application of the legitimate defense system by publishing a series of typical cases, and to a certain extent has achieved the goal of activating the application of the legitimate defense system. However, judging from the specific circumstances of some cases, in judicial practice, there is still a phenomenon that places too much emphasis on protecting the interests of defenders. This phenomenon is worthy of reflection and vigilance.

From a macro perspective, there is a serious imbalance of interests in the judicial application of legitimate defense in my country. These phenomena can be reflected in the cause conditions, time conditions, target conditions, purpose conditions and limit conditions of the justifiable defense system. Among the causal conditions, the unbalanced interests of the legitimate defense system are manifested by denying the causal conditions of legitimate defense by restricting the nature of the illegal infringement, limiting the occasion of the illegal infringement, and limiting the extent of the illegal infringement. According to the general theory of my country's criminal law, the cause of legitimate defense is the existence of "in progress" illegal infringement. Since the meaning of "in progress" can be understood from multiple angles, the scope of illegal infringement here is relatively wide. However, in the face of unlawful infringements solely against property rights, unlawful infringements on personal liberty rights or unlawful infringements on personal security rights, but the degree of infringement is not high, the judicial authorities usually deal with “without urgency of infringement”, So as to negate the establishment conditions of legitimate defense. In the face of unlawful infringers illegally intruding into other people's houses, unlawful infringers carrying out general provocative acts, unlawful infringements due to the existence of life disputes or reasons, the judicial authorities usually dismiss the case as "the wrongful infringer's fault". The conditions for the establishment of legitimate defense even recognize the defense as "fighting with each other". In judicial practice, there are still judicial institutions that recognize the existence of unlawful violations, but require that the unlawful violations must reach a certain degree of severity. This practice excludes the possibility of establishing legitimate defense for minor violations. Among the time conditions, the imbalance of the interests of legitimate defense manifests itself as limiting the scope of the meaning of "in progress". According to Chinese criminal law theory, the time condition for the establishment of legitimate defense is that illegal violations are in progress, thus excluding pre-defense and post-defense. However, in judicial practice, the judiciary either equates the meaning of "on going" with  the meaning of "urgency" and rigidly requires that the act of unlawful infringement should be after "ongoing", that is, the counterattack by the perpetrator It can only be carried out after the illegal violation has begun; or the requirement of "urgency" is added to the meaning of "in progress", and the violent counterattack should not be used when the actor may choose other remedies. In the target conditions, the imbalance of the interests of legitimate defense manifests itself as limiting the scope of the target of defense. According to the theory of Chinese criminal law, the target condition of legitimate defense is the perpetrator who committed the illegal violation, and it should include everyone who committed a joint crime. However, in judicial practice, the judiciary requires that defensive actions must be directed against those who are committing illegal violations, denying that other joint criminals can be the targets of defense. In addition, when judging whether a person with no criminal responsibility can exercise proper defense, the judiciary has a staggering position. In the subjective conditions, the imbalance of the interests of legitimate defense is manifested as a requirement for limiting defense awareness, that is, a subjective requirement. According to the theory of Chinese criminal law, the subjective condition of proper defense is that the perpetrator must have a legitimate defense intention when carrying out the defense action, that is, to have a defense awareness of the "progress of illegal violations" and a defense will of "protect the legitimate rights and interests". However, in judicial practice, when facing the possibility that the actor has foreseen, the actor has prepared a counterattack tool in advance, the actor has the possibility of retreat, the actor can help others, and there is a dispute or dispute between the actor, the judiciary usually deems that the actor has a "intentional injury" or an obligation to evade objectively, thus denying that the proper defense has the subjective conditions for establishment. In the limit conditions, the imbalance of the interests of legitimate defense manifests itself as the standard of limit defense. According to the theory of Chinese criminal law, the limit conditions for proper defense can be divided into two categories, specifically, the limit conditions for defense behavior and the limit conditions for defense results. The standard of behavior limit is "cannot exceed the necessary limit", while the standard of result limit is "no significant damage is caused". Both the requirements of defense behavior and the requirements of defense results must meet the above requirements in order to determine that the limit conditions of the behavior are justified. However, in judicial practice, the judiciary often starts directly from the condition of defense results, which leads to the problem of imbalance of interest due to the neglect of the importance of defense behavior.

The reason why the judicial application of China ’s legitimate defense system has serious imbalances of interests is mainly due to the fact that legitimate defense involves a tripartite conflict between defenders, unlawful infringers and the state. When dealing with legitimate defense cases, there is a violent judicial position of the judicial organs the problem of chaotic judicial logic. Among them, the sway of judicial position is a substantive issue, and the confusion of judicial logic is a matter of form. When solving this problem, we need to start with the principle of legitimate defense, and explore the resolution mechanism of the tripartite conflict from different perspectives, so as to clarify the logic between the principles of legitimate defense and the hierarchy between the conditions of legitimate defense.

At present， the principles of legitimate defense mainly include the principle of personal security， the principle of legal confirmation，and the principle of benefit measurement. These three principles are not perfect，each has its own problems，and at the same time， they play different functions for the establishment of legitimate defense. The principle of personal preservation means that the law allows individuals to take all necessary measures in order to protect their legitimate rights and interests. The problem with this principle is that it cannot justify the implementation of legitimate defense for the benefit of a third party， nor can it explain that the defense behavior is restricted by the principle of proportionality，and it does not comply with China's regulations for the implementation of legitimate defense for the protection of national and public interests. However， this principle has four functions： First，it can provide a legal basis for the cause of legitimate defense. Although China's criminal law stipulates that legitimate defense can be implemented for the protection of national and public interests，our country does not allow pure protection of national and public interests.The implementation of defense is based on the interests， and it is allowed only when personal interests are involved. The second is to be able to provide a legal basis for the conditions of the object of legitimate defense， especially for animals and persons without capacity to allow legitimate defense， we must first proceed from protecting personal rights. The third is to provide legal basis for the time conditions of legitimate defense. Justifiable defense can only deal with ongoing illegal violations. The law's confirmation principle can provide legal basis for pre-defense and post-defense， but it does not meet the requirements of China's criminal law. Conditions can only be found in the principle of personal security. The fourth is to provide legal basis for the limits of legitimate defense behaviors （the necessity of defense）. The principle of personal protection allows the defendant to face ongoing illegal violations， the defender has no obligation to evade， and the damage caused by the defense behavior can be greater than that caused by the illegal violation 的amage， while standing in the perspective of the defender， choose the defensive action with the least damage. The above functions of the principle of personal security are irreplaceable by the principle of legal confirmation and the principle of benefit measurement. The principle of legal confirmation refers to the legalization of legitimate defense by maintaining legal order. The problem with this principle is that it cannot explain the substantive content of the benefits of law confirmation，there is a suspicion of circular argument inside the law confirmation principle，and it cannot explain that the defense behavior is not restricted by the principle of proportionality. However， this principle has two functions： First， it can make necessary supplements to the functions of the personal security principle. Different from the function of expanding the right of justifiable defense， the function of the law of confirmation is to limit the right of justifiable defense. Its function is not the limit of the justifiable defense behavior （the necessity of defense）， but the limit of the result of justifiable defense （the equivalence of defense）. The principle of measuring benefits （the principle of superior interests） means that the interests of defenders are better than those that infringe upon the interests of others， so legitimate defense has legitimacy. The problem with this principle is the suspicion that there is a circular argument inside the benefit measurement principle， which confuses the factual judgment with the normative judgment in theory. However， this principle has two functions： first， it is helpful to judge whether there is a major interest imbalance. No matter which school of criminal law theory allows a certain range of imbalance between the interests of infringement and protection of interests， but does not allow the situation of significant interest imbalances， so the need to substantively measure the interests， determines the equivalence of defense. Second， it is helpful to remind the judge to pay attention to the situation of interest imbalance in advance. Especially in the case where the degree of illegal infringement is slight， but the defense result is not proportional to the infringement result， the principle of benefit measurement is needed.

According to the above analysis， there is a hierarchical relationship between the principle of legal defense dualism and the principle of benefit measurement， which combines the principles of personal preservation and the law of confirmation. The justification of dualism of justification as the justification of justification is worthy of promotion， because the justification of dualism of lawfulness can limit the objective criteria for the justification of justification. The principle of personal security determines the urgency of infringement and the necessity of defense. Its function is to expand the right of legitimate defense， while the law's confirmation principle plays a corresponding complementary role. Its function is to limit the right of legitimate defense and limit the scope of application of legitimate defense. Each has its own division of labor and functions. At the same time， the principle of benefit measurement is closely related to the dualism of legitimate defense. The principle of duality of legitimate defense cannot be separated from the principle of benefit measurement. The principle of benefit measurement cannot independently explain the justification of legitimate defense. It can only resort to higher-level theories. Therefore， the principle of legitimate defense dualism and the principle of benefit measurement need to cooperate with each other and distinguish the levels. From the perspective of the function and benefit level of the legitimate defense dualism， compared to the benefit measurement principle， the legitimate defense dualism is at the upper level while the legal benefit measurement principle is at the lower level. In contrast， when determining justifiable defense， the requirements of the justifiable duality of defense and the requirements of the principle of legal interest measurement must be met before the defense behavior can be considered legitimate. That is， the dualism of legitimate defense defines the objective conditions for allowing defense， including the urgency of infringement and the necessity of defense， and the principle of measuring benefits defines the limits of defense， mainly referring to the equivalence of defense.

China's criminal law theory finds that the conditions for the establishment of legitimate defense use a flat judgment system. Under this kind of judgment system， the elements of proper defense can be added or changed at will， and even repeated application may occur. The main manifestation is that the hierarchy and functionality between the various conditions of legitimate defense are ignored， which leads to deviations in the judicial logic of legitimate defense. Specifically， it includes two aspects：First，the cause conditions are designed to limit the scope of illegal infringement， that is， which illegal infringement acts can be used as the scope of legitimate defense. As long as the cause conditions are met， other conditions of legitimate defense can be judged further，and other conditions cannot be denied with "no defense urgency". The second is the limit condition， which aims to judge the limits of defense behavior and defense results，that is， the necessity of defense and the equivalence of defense. As long as the cause， time， subjective， and target conditions are met， the necessity of defense and the equivalence of defense can be judged， and the necessity of defense cannot be judged in subjective and time conditions. Specifically， the flattening of the conditions for the establishment of legitimate defense is mainly manifested in the logical dislocation of "urgency of violation"， "necessity of defense" and "equivalence of defense". In terms of "urgency of infringement"， it is mainly manifested as follows：First，in the relationship between "urgency of infringement" and the cause and condition， the problem is that "urgency of infringement" as an element of the identification of illegal infringement is in each condition of the establishment of legitimate defense There is a superposition phenomenon， that is， while acknowledging the existence of illegal infringement， it also attaches the "urgency" element to limit the scope of illegal infringement； after identifying the illegal infringement with "urgency"， it uses "urgency" to deny the defense intention，defense time，defense limit. The second is the relationship between "urgency of violation" and time conditions. The problem is that "urgency of violation" is confused with the time condition， that is， "urgency of violation" is equivalent to "in progress". In fact， the time of illegal violations It is not exactly the same time as the defensive behavior. In terms of "defense necessity"， the main manifestations are as follows： First， after the defense necessity is identified， the "evasion obligation" element is added to limit the defense of the necessity of defense. Second， there is a confusion between "defense necessity" and "defence equivalence"， which focuses too much on the limit of defense results （the equivalence of defense） and ignores "defense necessity". In terms of "defensive equivalence"， it is mainly reflected that there is a misalignment in the logical order of "defense necessity" and "defensive equivalence". Only after judging that the defense action satisfies the necessity of defense can we determine whether the equivalence of defense is satisfied. The opposite is often the case in judicial practice.

In order to realize the problem of solving the problem of the form of the imbalance of the interests of legitimate defense to the substantive issue of pursuing the interests of the legitimate defense， it is necessary to reform the conditions of the establishment of the legitimate defense on a hierarchical basis. On the basis of clarifying the judgement logic of the legitimate defense， the right to seek private relief and the right to public relief， the interests of defenders and the interests of infringers. The determination of the conditions for the establishment of a justifiable defense requires three levels of judgment： the first level of "violation urgency" judgment. "the urgency of infringement" is the overall response to illegal infringement. It is also the essential attribute of illegal infringement. As long as the act belongs to the scope of illegal infringement in legitimate defense， it can be directly determined that the act has "urgency of infringement." The scope of the violations was defined in advance. This approach can achieve a substantial expansion of the scope of illegal violations， rather than limiting the scope of illegal violations. The second level of "defense necessity" judgment. "necessity of defense" excludes the existence of "obligation to evade"， and "the necessity of defense" aims to examine the limits of defensive behavior. In this regard， the identification of the "necessity of defense" requires a comprehensive review of various objective factors， the prediction of ex ante dangers， the evaluation of the defense behavior itself， and the principle of objective imputation. The third level of "defensive equivalence" judgment. "defense equivalence" is a substantive judgment on the measurement of legal benefits， and "defensive equivalence" aims to examine the limits of defense results. In this regard， the determination of "defensive equivalence" requires judgment of the rank of interests and the overall judgment of the defense results.