醉駕行為一概入罪否定論
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-23 21:25
【摘要】：伴隨著道路上機動車數(shù)量的不斷增多,加之機動車自身的高速性與巨大的整車重量,駕駛?cè)藛T一個輕微的駕駛失誤就極易引發(fā)事故慘劇。因此,醉酒駕駛機動車輛隱藏著巨大的交通事故隱患,一旦發(fā)生交通事故,損失也是極其慘重的。國家為了預防這類犯罪,立法機關(guān)將這類行政違法行為升格為刑事犯罪行為,希望通過刑法的威懾作用來有效避免該類危險行為的發(fā)生。因此在《刑法修正案(八)》當中,首次增設(shè)醉酒型危險駕駛罪,并且在《刑法修正案(九)》當中繼續(xù)對該行為進行了保留,但是在這兩次修正案當中都沒有規(guī)定該罪的定罪情節(jié)。近三年來,危險駕駛罪的一審審結(jié)量都保持在10萬件以上,并且保持每年遞增的趨勢,已經(jīng)演變成了高發(fā)性刑事案件。這一現(xiàn)象產(chǎn)生的原因在于,司法機關(guān)對該行為入罪標準的認定過于機械,即以駕駛員血液中的酒精含量大于或者等于80mg/100ml作為定罪標準。對該行為情節(jié)的認定缺乏相應的統(tǒng)一標準,并且往往忽視其他特殊情形。因此,對于這種輕微的刑事犯罪,依然存在“出罪”的可能性,而且對“出罪”標準的把握也是十分必要的。本文以專題研究的形式,通過三個部分進行論述。第一部分是醉駕行為一概入罪否定論的必要性與可能性證成。該部分主要是對存在“出罪”可能的醉駕行為進行類型化分析,找出醉駕行為入罪與“出罪”的界限。并結(jié)合相關(guān)刑法學理論、現(xiàn)有法律制度及社會現(xiàn)狀等因素進行綜合考量,對醉酒駕駛行為存在“出罪”情形的必要性與可能性進行有效論證。第二部分是醉駕行為一概入罪否定論的路徑分析。該部分以責任阻卻事由理論、原因自由行為理論及刑法第13條“但書”條款為支撐,通過對實務(wù)當中存在爭議的相關(guān)案件進行研究,并進行對比與歸納,最終總結(jié)出了醉駕行為“出罪”的具體路徑。第三部分是醉駕行為一概入罪否定論的制度完善。該部分通過從立法、司法及判例三個角度,提出相關(guān)建議,對醉駕行為一概入罪否定論進行有效完善,從而有效指導司法實踐。
[Abstract]:Along with the increasing number of motor vehicles on the road, coupled with the vehicle's own high speed and huge vehicle weight, a slight driving error by drivers is easy to cause accidents tragedy. Therefore, drunk driving motor vehicle hidden huge hidden dangers of traffic accident, once the traffic accident, the loss is extremely heavy. In order to prevent this kind of crime, the legislature upgraded this kind of administrative illegal act to criminal crime, hoping to effectively avoid the occurrence of this kind of dangerous behavior through the deterrent effect of criminal law. Therefore, in the Criminal Law Amendment (8), the crime of drunken dangerous driving has been added for the first time, and in the Amendment (9) of the Criminal Law, the act has continued to be reserved. But neither amendment provides for a conviction. In the past three years, the number of first-instance adjudication of dangerous driving crimes has been kept at more than 100000, and the trend of increasing every year has evolved into a high incidence of criminal cases. The reason for this phenomenon lies in the fact that the judiciary's recognition of the standard of incrimination is too mechanical, that is, the alcohol content in the blood of the driver is greater than or equal to 80mg/100ml as the standard of conviction. There is a lack of uniform standards for the determination of the action, and other special circumstances are often ignored. Therefore, for such minor criminal offences, there is still the possibility of "crime", and it is very necessary to grasp the standard of "crime". This paper, in the form of special research, is discussed in three parts. The first part is the necessity and possibility of drunk driving. This part mainly analyzes the possible drunken driving behavior in the existence of "crime", and finds out the boundary between "drunken driving behavior" and "crime out". Combined with the relevant criminal law theory, the existing legal system and the social status quo and other factors for comprehensive consideration, the necessity and possibility of the existence of "crime" in drunken driving behavior are effectively demonstrated. The second part is the path analysis of the theory of the crime of drunk driving. This part is supported by the theory of responsibility and obstruction, the theory of reason free behavior and the proviso clause of Article 13 of the Criminal Law, through the study of the relevant cases in practice, and the comparison and induction. Finally summed up the drunk driving behavior, "out of the crime" specific path. The third part is the perfection of the system of the crime of drunk driving. In this part, the author puts forward some relevant suggestions from three angles of legislation, judicature and case law, which can effectively perfect the theory of negation of the crime of drunk driving, and guide the judicial practice effectively.
【學位授予單位】：遼寧大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3
本文編號：2290503
[Abstract]:Along with the increasing number of motor vehicles on the road, coupled with the vehicle's own high speed and huge vehicle weight, a slight driving error by drivers is easy to cause accidents tragedy. Therefore, drunk driving motor vehicle hidden huge hidden dangers of traffic accident, once the traffic accident, the loss is extremely heavy. In order to prevent this kind of crime, the legislature upgraded this kind of administrative illegal act to criminal crime, hoping to effectively avoid the occurrence of this kind of dangerous behavior through the deterrent effect of criminal law. Therefore, in the Criminal Law Amendment (8), the crime of drunken dangerous driving has been added for the first time, and in the Amendment (9) of the Criminal Law, the act has continued to be reserved. But neither amendment provides for a conviction. In the past three years, the number of first-instance adjudication of dangerous driving crimes has been kept at more than 100000, and the trend of increasing every year has evolved into a high incidence of criminal cases. The reason for this phenomenon lies in the fact that the judiciary's recognition of the standard of incrimination is too mechanical, that is, the alcohol content in the blood of the driver is greater than or equal to 80mg/100ml as the standard of conviction. There is a lack of uniform standards for the determination of the action, and other special circumstances are often ignored. Therefore, for such minor criminal offences, there is still the possibility of "crime", and it is very necessary to grasp the standard of "crime". This paper, in the form of special research, is discussed in three parts. The first part is the necessity and possibility of drunk driving. This part mainly analyzes the possible drunken driving behavior in the existence of "crime", and finds out the boundary between "drunken driving behavior" and "crime out". Combined with the relevant criminal law theory, the existing legal system and the social status quo and other factors for comprehensive consideration, the necessity and possibility of the existence of "crime" in drunken driving behavior are effectively demonstrated. The second part is the path analysis of the theory of the crime of drunk driving. This part is supported by the theory of responsibility and obstruction, the theory of reason free behavior and the proviso clause of Article 13 of the Criminal Law, through the study of the relevant cases in practice, and the comparison and induction. Finally summed up the drunk driving behavior, "out of the crime" specific path. The third part is the perfection of the system of the crime of drunk driving. In this part, the author puts forward some relevant suggestions from three angles of legislation, judicature and case law, which can effectively perfect the theory of negation of the crime of drunk driving, and guide the judicial practice effectively.
【學位授予單位】：遼寧大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924.3
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 孫國祥;;“禮金”入罪的理據(jù)和認定[J];法學評論;2016年05期
2 王永坤;;淺析“醉駕型”以危險方法危害公共安全罪——立足個案的實證分析[J];山西青年;2016年07期
3 高銘暄;李彥峰;;《刑法修正案(九)》立法理念探尋與評析[J];法治研究;2016年02期
4 孫萬懷;;違法相對性理論的崩潰——對刑法前置化立法傾向的一種批評[J];政治與法律;2016年03期
5 文姬;;醉酒型危險駕駛罪量刑影響因素實證研究[J];法學研究;2016年01期
6 仝虎;;論危險駕駛罪與交通肇事罪、以危險方法危害公共安全罪的關(guān)系[J];法制博覽;2016年01期
7 曾峗;;犯罪學中的定性與定量研究[J];山東警察學院學報;2015年03期
8 歐陽文星;;論隔夜醉駕的入罪標準[J];法制博覽;2015年11期
9 施立棟;余凌云;;醉駕案件辦理的疑難問題與解決方案——兼評三機關(guān)《醉駕司法解釋》[J];北方法學;2015年01期
10 李冠煜;;再論危險駕駛罪的客觀方面——超前立法觀、實質(zhì)解釋論、類型思維法之運用[J];北方法學;2014年06期
相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條
1 戴玉忠;;醉酒駕車犯罪相關(guān)法律規(guī)定的理解與適用[N];檢察日報;2011年
，本文編號：2290503
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2290503.html
