Abstract: The “preservation type self-help” should serve as a defensive mechanism within the framework of China's criminal law， yet it should not be a direct replication of the German theory. If the means employed to safeguard the rights of obligee meet with requirements of the crime of intentional injury， illegal detention or other crimes， then the “preservation type self-help” is unnecessary and inapplicable. If the protective measures amount to the crime of intentionally damaging property， the “preservation type self-help” may still be invoked when the action is deemed necessary and the property in question is of minor value. It is necessary to admit that self-help can be applied in the cases in which the obligee takes away or distrains the property of the obligor or collects the personal information of the obligor to safeguard his rights. In the former case， the establishment of such measures should be in accordance with article 1177 of the Civil Code， which stipulates the requirement to “immediately request court processing”. Conversely， the latter scenario should not be constrained by this stipulation.

Key words: self-help; defense; private remedy; right exercise; the uniformity of legal order