为了减少高空抛物行为，维护社会稳定，《刑法修正案（十一）》设立了高空抛物罪。此后，刑法学界对高空抛物罪的研究集中于高空抛物罪法益的认定、 构成要件的解释、犯罪类型的确定以及犯罪竞合关系四方面。为了正确适用高空抛物罪的规定，有必要发挥法益的解释论功能，对上述问题的解决提供理论参考。 

本文共分为四个部分。首先是对高空抛物罪的保护法益作出界定。关于高空抛物罪的保护法益，存在公共安全法益、人身安全法益、公共秩序法益及公共场所秩序法益四种观点。基于法益二元论的观点，集体法益具有独立的价值，无需还原成个人法益。将高空抛物罪的法益理解为人身安全，是对个人法益与集体法益之间关系的错误认识。将公共秩序法益细化为公共场所秩序法益缺少解释上的必要性。目前对高空抛物罪保护法益的争议集中于公共安全法益和公共秩序法益之间。公共安全法益可被归纳为不特定人或多数人的生命、健康或财产利益，而公共秩序法益是指公民在生产、生活过程中形成并遵守的社会规则。基于法益的基础理论，高空抛物罪的法益需要有被侵害的现实性可能性。解释高空抛物罪的法益需要符合体系解释的原则，符合刑事立法的目的，且符合法益明确性的要求。 基于上述四条原则，高空抛物罪保护公共秩序法益，即不得高空抛掷物品的社会共识性规则。 

其次，有必要正确理解高空抛物罪的构成要件要素。根据《刑法》第 291条之二第一款的规定，认定高空抛物罪的客观要件，主要涉及“高空”“抛掷”和“物”三项构成要件要素的理解与适用。结合《住宅设计规范》，“高空”的 高度标准为距坠落度基准面 2.8m 及以上。对“高空”应通过扩大解释理解为“高处”。平地向上抛物的行为不构成高空抛物罪。“高空抛物”和“高空坠物”存在区别。不作为方式导致物品坠落的，不构成高空抛物行为。利用工具“抛掷”物品能够构成高空抛物，但利用的工具需作为手部的延伸而存在，且手部应对工具实施了直接的有形力。为了实现保护公共秩序法益的要求，对“物”的种类不应进行限制。在解释高空抛物罪的主观要件时，要结合高空抛物罪的保护法益和《刑法》第 14 条、第 15 条的规定。有意实施高空抛物行为即构成对公共秩序法益的侵害，因而高空抛物罪是故意犯罪。对“情节严重”的认定应依靠高空抛物罪的社会危害程度，结合物品种类、抛物场所等因素进行判断。 

再次，高空抛物罪的犯罪类型存在实害犯、具体危险犯和抽象危险犯三种观点。《刑法修正案（十一）》二审稿出台前，对高空抛物罪犯罪类型的讨论集中于具体危险犯和抽象危险犯之间。《二审稿》出台后，围绕公共秩序法益，对高空抛物罪犯罪类型的讨论集中于实害犯和抽象危险犯之间。《二审稿》出台前，根据体系解释与文义解释的原则，结合《刑法》第 114 条第一款的规定，高空抛物罪应为具体危险犯。《二审稿》出台后，由于在高空抛物行为实施的同时即造成了损害公共秩序法益的现实侵害结果，所以，高空抛物罪应属于实害犯的范畴。 

最后，就高空抛物罪与其他犯罪的竞合关系而言，首先要先明确高空抛物行为涉及的罪名范畴。构成以危险方法危害公共安全罪高空抛物行为会损害公共安全法益，同时行为具有扩张性的特征。高空抛物行为可能构成拦截他人型寻衅滋事罪，任意损毁公私财物型寻衅滋事罪，以及起哄闹事型寻衅滋事罪。此外，结合损害结果，高空抛物行为可能构成侵害人身权益的犯罪、侵害财产权益的犯罪及扰乱正常生产生活的犯罪。高空抛物罪的竞合关系包括想象竞合和法条竞合。想象竞合所涉及的罪名侵犯数个保护法益，而法条竞合涉及的罪名所侵犯的保护法益之间存在同一关系或交叉关系。高空抛物罪与故意伤害罪等罪名之间存在想象竞合关系，与起哄闹事型寻衅滋事罪、任意损毁公私财物型寻衅滋事罪之间存在法条竞合关系。

To control the act and maintain social stability, The Amendment (XI) To The Criminal Law officially established the crime of throwing objects at high altitude. After the establishment of this crime, criminal researches focus on the legal interest of this crime, the interpretation of the crime’s elements, the types of this crime and the competitive relationship between this crime and other crimes. In order to punish the crime of throwing objects from high-rises, it is necessary to use the hermeneutics implication of legal interests, which could provide theoretical references for the above stated problems. 

This article is divided into four parts. At first, the legal interest of the crime of throwing objects at high altitude needs to be defined. On the protection of legal interest, there are four viewpoints to this crime, including public safety, personal saftety, public order and public order in respect to public places. Based on the dualism of legal interest, collective interest has independent value. Collective interest does not need to be transfered to individual interest. The idea that this crime aims at protecting personal safety misunderstands the relationship between individual interest and collective interest. From the author’s perspective, there is no need to transfer public order in respect to public places. The current controversy over the legal interest of the high-altitude throwing crime is concentrated between public safety and public order. Public safety can be summarized as the life, health or property interests of unspecified persons or the majority of people. Public order can be summarized as social rules, which is followed by citizens in common life. Based on the theory of legal interest, the legal interest of the high-altitude throwing crime should have a realistic possibility of being infringed. Besides, the interpretation of the legal interest needs to conform to the principle of systematic interpretation, follow the purpose of criminal legislation, and meet the requirements of clarity. Based on the above four principles, after examining the legal interest of public security and public order one by one, it can be considered that substantial hurling crime protects the legal interest of public order. This legal interest specifically refers to the social consensus rule that people who are high above the ground should not hurl objects. 

Secondly, it is necessary to correctly define the constituent elements of the substantial hurling crime. According to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article. 291 of The Criminal Law, the objective elements of this crime mainly involve the elements of “substantial height”, “throwing” and “object”. The first problem in interpreting objective elements is the interpretation of “substantial height”. According to The Residential Design Code, “substantial height” should be of 2.8m and above, from the falling location to the ground. With the expanded way to interpret “substantial height”, this word could also mean “elevated place”. The act of hurling objects from ground does not constitute the high-altitude throwing crime as stipulated in The Criminal Law. The second problem is the interpretation of hurling. There is a difference between “hurling objects from elevated place” and “falling objects from elevated place”. The fall of objects by inaction does not constitute a raised hurling behavior. Next, with two requirements, hurling object with tools constitutes an elevated hurling. Firstly, the tool needs to be used in a tight combination of the hand. Secondly, the perpetrator should exert direct physical force on the tool. The third issue is the interpretation of “objects”. In order to meet the requirements of protecting public order, the types of “objects” should not be restricted. The subjective elements of the high-altitude throwing crime should be interpreted in conjunction with the legal interest of this crime and mollify the provisions of Article 14 and Article 15. Since the substantial hurling crime protects public order, as long as the act is intentionally carried out, it will cause an intentionally infringe on the public order. As a result, the substantial hurling crime is an intentional crime. The judgment of “serious circumstances” should depend on the degree of social harm caused by the hurling act, combined with the types of objects, throwing places and other factors. 

Thirdly, there are three viewpoints on the high-altitude throwing crime, including actual harm crime, concrete dangerous crime, and abstract dangerous crime. Before the publication of The Criminal Law Amendment (XI) (subsequent second review draft) , the discussion on the types of crime focused on the concrete and abstract dangerous offenders. After the publication of The subsequent Second Review Draft, the discussion on the types of crime focuses on the actual crime and the abstract dangerous crime. Before the publication of The subsequent Second Review Draft, according to the principles of system interpretation and literal interpretation, combined with the provisions of Article 114(1), the high-altitude throwing crime should be considered as a concrete dangerous crime. After the publication of The subsequent Second Review Draft, the crime of throwing objects at high altitude should be an actual crime. The actual infringement to public order ensues while the act of high-altitude hurling is carried out. 

Finally, the concurrence between the high-altitude throwing crime and other crimes should be based on the clear scope of the crimes involved in high-altitude hurling. The act of hurling objects from substantial altitude, which constitutes the crime of endangering public security by dangerous methods, needs to infringe public security, and should have the characteristics of perilous demeanor. In addition, the act of hurling objects from substantial altitude, which constitutes the crime of creating disturbances, is manifested in the act of intercepting insults to another person, the act of destroying public or private property, and the act of creating disturbances in a public places that causes serious disorder in such places. In addition, based on the damage caused by throwing, the high-altitude throwing crime includes crimes against personal rights and interests, crimes against property rights and interests, and crimes that disrupt orders. The concurrence relation of the high-altitude throwing crime includes imaginative concurrence relation and legal concurrence relation. The crimes with imaginative concurrence relation protect different legal interests. On the other hand, the interests protected by crimes with legal concurrence relation exist same or inclusive relationship. There is an imaginative concurrence relation between the substantial hurling crime and the crime of intentional injury and other crimes. When the act of throwing objects at high altitude destroys public or private property, or creats disturbances, there is a legal concurrence relationship between high-altitude hurling and the crime of creating disturbances.