抽象危险犯的立法模式能够适应风险社会对刑法的要求，具有独特价值。然而，随着抽象危险犯不断增加，法益保护的刑法防线不断向前延伸，法益保护与人权保障之间形成了紧张关系。为使得抽象危险犯的处罚与罪责原则相适应，引入实质化判断的视角对抽象危险犯的处罚范围进行限缩就成为了必然的选择。本文首先从厘清抽象危险犯的范围入手：从形式侧面来看，抽象危险犯是只规定了行为，而没有规定具体危险和实害结果的犯罪；从实质侧面看，抽象危险犯是前置性保护法益的犯罪。以法益二元论为立场，适格集体法益也值得独立保护。所以，从逻辑上讲，抽象危险犯就包括前置性保护个人法益的抽象危险犯和前置性保护集体法益的抽象危险犯。因此，直接保护个人法益的罪名和直接保护集体法益的罪名就应当排除出抽象危险犯的范围。前者指的是要排除直接保护个人法益合辑的罪名，这类罪名所保护的法益虽然披着集体法益外衣，可本质上仍是个人法益。后者被排除则是因为这些罪名不符合抽象危险犯前置性保护法益的构造。按照上述思路，本文从对我国立法中梳理出了73个抽象危险犯罪名。厘清抽象危险犯范围后，本文对抽象危险犯的处罚根据展开探讨，认为抽象危险犯实质上旨在处罚一种程度较低的现实危险，而非立法拟制的危险。在限缩路径方面，立法限缩固然能够比较圆满地解决问题，然而，在立法尚未作出调整之前，从刑法解释学的角度出发，为司法提供合理限缩抽象危险犯的解释路径则更具有现实意义。实质解释与反证是司法限缩的不同面向。从实体面向，应当对抽象危险犯的构成要件进行实质解释，以合目的理性为解释向导，实现刑罚处罚的适当性。在我国的立法语境中，还应当发挥“但书”对构成要件解释的指引作用。从程序面向，应当允许被告人反证抽象危险不存在。反证是被告人提出的正当化事由，给予被告人反证的权利并不会与设置抽象危险犯的立法初衷相抵触，也不会造成抽象危险犯与具体危险犯难以区分，而且还与“存疑有利于被告人”原则的精神实质相契合，也有助于避免以侵害人权为代价追求一般预防效果的不当做法。从刑事诉讼的角度来说，也并不违背证明责任的一般原理。最后，本文从举证顺序、举证标准和反证适用限制等方面对构建一个可操作的反证制度进行了尝试。

The legislation mode of abstract endangerment offense can meet the requirement of risk society to criminal law and has unique value. However, with the continuous increase of abstract endangerment offense, the criminal defense line of legal interest protection is continuously extended, and there is a tense relationship between legal interest protection and human rights protection. In order to make the punishment of abstract endangerment offense fit with the principle of guilt, it is an inevitable choice to introduce the perspective of substantive judgment to limit the punishment scope of abstract endangerment offense. This paper starts with clarifying the scope of abstract endangerment offense: from the aspect of form, abstract endangerment offense is a crime that only stipulates the behavior, but does not stipulate the concrete danger and the actual harm result; From the aspect of essence, abstract endangerment offense is the crime of preposition protection of legal interests. On the standpoint of dualism of legal interest, appropriate collective legal interest is also worth protecting independently. Therefore, logically speaking, abstract endangerment offense includes the abstract endangerment offense which protects individual legal interest and the abstract endangerment offense which protects collective legal interest. Therefore, the charge of directly protecting individual legal interest and the charge of directly protecting collective legal interest should be excluded from the scope of abstract endangerment offense. The former refers to the exclusion of the charges that directly protect the collection of personal legal interests. Although the legal interests protected by such charges are disguised as collective legal interests, they are still personal legal interests in essence. The latter is excluded because these charges do not conform to the construction of the predisposition of protective legal interest of abstract endangerment offense. According to the above ideas, this paper sorts out 73 abstract endangerment offense names from the legislation of our country. After clarifying the scope of abstract endangerment offense, this paper discusses the punishment basis of abstract endangerment offense, and holds that abstract endangerment offense is essentially aimed at punishing a real danger of a lower degree, rather than the danger created by legislation. In terms of the limiting path, the legislative limiting path can solve the problem perfectly, but before the legislation has not been adjusted, from the perspective of criminal law hermeneutics, it is of more practical significance to provide a reasonable limiting abstract endangerment offense explanation path for the judiciary. Substantive interpretation and disproof are different aspects of judicial restraint. From the aspect of substance, we should give a substantial explanation to the constitutive elements of abstract endangerment offense, and take purposeful reason as the guide of explanation, so as to realize the appropriateness of punishment. In the legislative context of our country, the proviso should also play a guiding role in the interpretation of constitutive elements. From the aspect of procedure, the defendant should be allowed to prove that the abstract danger does not exist. This paper argues that counterevidence should be regarded as the special defense of the defendant, allowing disproof will not conflict with the concept of the abstract endangerment offenses, not only will not confuse the boundaries of abstract endangerment offenses and concrete dangerous crimes, but also with the principle of "doubt is beneficial to the defendant" corresponds to the spiritual essence, also help to avoid to infringe on human rights at the expense of the pursuit of the general preventive effect of improper practices. Finally, this paper tries to construct an operable system of disproof from the aspects of the sequence of disproof, the standard of disproof and the limitation of the application of disproof.