How to evaluate the counterattack behavior against “expected harm” has always been a theoretical difference between justifiable defense and emergency avoidance, which is vividly reflected in cases such as “abused women killing their husbands”.The theory of risk avoidance defines the “imminent danger” as a “real danger” with a lower degree of urgency, and affirms the establishment of defensive emergency avoidance in some scenarios by mitigating the judgment of “necessity” and limiting conditions. However, if there is no possibility of other actions at the time of the behavior, the danger faced by the actor has reached a realistic level of urgency. The standard of “realistic danger” is actually based on the substantive judgment of the degree of danger, and an additional formal requirement of time span is added. The purpose of this restrictive interpretation is to prevent the abuse of the highly dominant self-defense system, distinguish between the premise of avoidance and the premise of defense, and limit the scope of the establishment of self-defense. Within the reduced range, defensive emergency avoidance is used as a substitute theory to compensate for the space for criminalization. However, under the premise that Article 20 (2) of China’s Criminal Law explicitly requires the limit of defense, the legitimate defense system in China does not have the extreme dominance of the theory of avoidance as a theoretical premise. Combined with the current situation in China’s judicial practice where emergency avoidance is only applied to situations that harm the interests of innocent third parties, it is more reasonable to apply the legitimate defense approach in situations of “expected infringement”. In theory, the essence of “expected infringement” is that the infringer creates a real danger of infringement, and this danger is not cut off until the counterattack occurs. Similar legal principles can refer to the process of causal freedom of action, from expected infringement in justifiable defense to illegal infringement and ultimately the result of infringement, corresponding to causal behavior, state of irresponsibility, and resulting behavior in causal freedom of action. From the beginning to the end, danger is created and finally realized, and the initial behavior already implies a high possibility of the final infringement result occurring. Therefore, on the premise that the initial behavior meets the three elements of predictability of the infringement, clarity of the infringement warning, and lack of possibility for public power relief, the danger of the infringement result has reached a realistic urgency level and meets the prerequisite for legitimate defense. At this time, the counterattack implemented should be evaluated as a defensive behavior. In individual case judgment, objective post judgment standards should be adhered to. Even if the defensive actor subjectively has a mistaken understanding and believes in the existence of an “expected danger” that can be defended in situations where the above three elements are not met, it constitutes hypothetical defense. In situations where the mistaken belief cannot be avoided, it should be handled according to the unexpected event, which can also achieve a balance in protecting the interests of both parties in the conflict.