司法實務對誤想防衛之處理有兩種不同模式，一種是認為阻卻故意而處以過失罪，另一種是所涉罪名因不罰過失而執意不讓其成立誤想防衛。學說有關故意定義及故意之歸屬階段，則有各種看法。其中以認定故意內容僅需有事實認識，不需違法性意識，同時將事實故意歸屬於構成要件該當性階段，違法性意識歸屬於責任階段之犯罪三階說暨嚴格責任說最受青睞，本文亦採此說，且舉出實證法上刑法總則第14條及第16條，以及刑法分則過失犯之有限性以為論證依據。若依本文所採標準，則最高法院今後對誤想防衛，都應採「不阻卻故意說」，且須於責任評價階段，依一般人之標準去判斷誤想防衛之行為人對於錯誤是否可得避免，若可，則處以故意罪，若不可，則無罪。

The judicial precedents has two different modes of handling the imaginary defense. One is to think that it is not deliberate and guilty of negligence. The other is to insist on no imaginary defense because of impunity. There are various views on the deliberate definition and the stage of deliberate attribution. Among them, the so call third-stage theory of crime and strict liability is most favored, in which it claims the deliberateness need only a factual understanding, and no need for illegal awareness. At the same time, the theory also claims that the deliberateness is attributed to the first stage of crime theory. This paper also uses this theory, and cites the general provisions of the Criminal Law, articles 14 and 16, and the limited nature of the criminal law's negligence offences, in order to based on argumentation. According to the standards adopted in this paper, the Supreme Court should be take a “not blocked but deliberately theory” in the future, and must be according to the standard of the average person, whether the actor who misunderstood the defense can avoid, if it is okay, it is sinful, if it is unavoidable, it is not guilty.