本案例中,法律阐释的必要性由控辩双方对“必要限度”和“重大损害”的不同理解而产生。法律阐释的方法众多,在方法的选择上应遵循“先客观后主观”、“先现实后历史”的规则,根据该规则,法律阐释应首选文义解释法,若行不通则依社会的现实需要解释。依照这样的规则阐释现行刑法第二十条第二款中的“必要限度”和“重大损害”,本文所举案例中乙的防卫行为超过了必要限度、造成了重大损害。 In this case, the necessity of legal interpretation arises from the different understandings of “necessary limits” and “material damages” between the prosecution and the defense. There are many ways to interpret the law. In the choice of methods, we should follow the rules of “objectively and objectively subjectively” and “after the reality first”. According to this rule, legal interpretation should be the first choice of the textual interpretation method, and if it does not, Need to explain. In accordance with such rules, “necessary limits” and “major damages” in the second paragraph of Article 20 of the current Criminal Law are expounded. In the case cited in this article, B’s defense behavior exceeded the necessary limit, causing significant damage.