無論行為人的懷疑心態（可能性想像）發生在哪個犯罪審查階層的主觀要件上，所圍繞的核心問題都是：他應該如何處理這個風險認知？在怎樣的條件下他應該要放棄他的行為？發生在阻卻違法事由前提事實的懷疑，本文稱之為「容許事實懷疑」，這是一種存在於行為人主觀面的現象，與客觀上是否存有阻卻違法事實是分屬不同層次的兩個問題。在客觀上存有阻卻違法事實的情形，倘若可能性想像能夠滿足主觀阻卻違法要素的要求，便會形成阻卻違法的效果；若否，則要適用「反面容許構成要件錯誤」的規則來處理。反之，如果客觀上並沒有阻卻違法之事實，則只有當可能性想像能夠滿足主觀阻卻違法要素的要求時，才會形成「容許構成要件錯誤」。 有鑑於阻卻違法要素在性質上的差異，處於容許事實懷疑狀態的行為人主觀上對於阻卻違法事實的可能性想像，是否仍能符合主觀阻卻違法要素的要求，無法一概而論，必須根據這個可能性想像所涉及的要素性質來區別處理。如果懷疑所涉及的阻卻違法要素含有推測（可能性判斷）的成分，而行為人主觀上所想像的事實亦可建構相關的可能性判斷，便可滿足該阻卻違法要素在主觀面的要求。反之，如果懷疑所涉及的要素不含推測成分，那麼行為人主觀上就必須對其前提事實的存在具有確切的認知（明知、確信），隨而，可能性想像就無法滿足該阻卻違法事由在主觀面的要求。縱使如此，處於懷疑的行為人最後也還是有可能在罪責審查階層中獲得寬恕。

No matter the perpetrator's doubt (possible imagination) is occurred in which criminal review level, the issues surrounding the core are: How should he deal with this risk perception? Under what condition should he give up his act? The doubt that occurred in the premise of justification is called “doubt on the existence of justificaiton facts”, which is a matter of prepetrator’s subjective intent, and should be discussed separately from whether there exists justification fact objectively. When the justification fact exists objectively, and the possible imagination can satisfy the subjective matter of the justification, it be a defense. However, if the possible imagination can’t satisfy the subcan jective element of the justification, it would constitute a negative mistake of justification facts. When the justification fact does not exist objectively, it would constitute a mistake of justification facts only when the possible imagination can satisfy the subjective element. Due to the nature difference of justification’s elements, the nature of the element involved will be the basis to determine whether the perpetrator’s subjective possible imagination can satisfy the subjective element of the justification. If the element that doubted includs speculation (possibility), and the facts imagined by the prepetrator can establish the possibility that required, it can satisfy the subjective matter of the justification. On the other hand, if the element that doubted does not include speculation, then possible imagination would not satisfy the subjective matter of the justification, and the prepetrator need to be certain (knowingly, certainly) about the premise of the justification. Even so, guilt of the prepetrator in doubt is still possible to be eventually negated in the responsibility level.