【摘要】：伴隨著道路上機(jī)動(dòng)車數(shù)量的不斷增多,加之機(jī)動(dòng)車自身的高速性與巨大的整車重量,駕駛?cè)藛T一個(gè)輕微的駕駛失誤就極易引發(fā)事故慘劇。因此,醉酒駕駛機(jī)動(dòng)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(guó)家為了預(yù)防這類犯罪,立法機(jī)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(xiǎn)行為的發(fā)生。因此在《刑法修正案(八)》當(dāng)中,首次增設(shè)醉酒型危險(xiǎn)駕駛罪,并且在《刑法修正案(九)》當(dāng)中繼續(xù)對(duì)該行為進(jìn)行了保留,但是在這兩次修正案當(dāng)中都沒有規(guī)定該罪的定罪情節(jié)。近三年來,危險(xiǎn)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(shì),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(jī)關(guān)對(duì)該行為入罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的認(rèn)定過于機(jī)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(biāo)準(zhǔn)。對(duì)該行為情節(jié)的認(rèn)定缺乏相應(yīng)的統(tǒng)一標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并且往往忽視其他特殊情形。因此,對(duì)于這種輕微的刑事犯罪,依然存在“出罪”的可能性,而且對(duì)“出罪”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的把握也是十分必要的。本文以專題研究的形式,通過三個(gè)部分進(jìn)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(duì)存在“出罪”可能的醉駕行為進(jìn)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(xué)理論、現(xiàn)有法律制度及社會(huì)現(xiàn)狀等因素進(jìn)行綜合考量,對(duì)醉酒駕駛行為存在“出罪”情形的必要性與可能性進(jìn)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(zé)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(duì)實(shí)務(wù)當(dāng)中存在爭(zhēng)議的相關(guān)案件進(jìn)行研究,并進(jìn)行對(duì)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(gè)角度,提出相關(guān)建議,對(duì)醉駕行為一概入罪否定論進(jìn)行有效完善,從而有效指導(dǎo)司法實(shí)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(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫國(guó)祥;;“禮金”入罪的理據(jù)和認(rèn)定[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2016年05期

2 王永坤;;淺析“醉駕型”以危險(xiǎn)方法危害公共安全罪——立足個(gè)案的實(shí)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(píng)析[J];法治研究;2016年02期

4 孫萬懷;;違法相對(duì)性理論的崩潰——對(duì)刑法前置化立法傾向的一種批評(píng)[J];政治與法律;2016年03期

5 文姬;;醉酒型危險(xiǎn)駕駛罪量刑影響因素實(shí)證研究[J];法學(xué)研究;2016年01期

6 仝虎;;論危險(xiǎn)駕駛罪與交通肇事罪、以危險(xiǎn)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(xué)中的定性與定量研究[J];山東警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2015年03期

8 歐陽文星;;論隔夜醉駕的入罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[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(píng)三機(jī)關(guān)《醉駕司法解釋》[J];北方法學(xué);2015年01期

10 李冠煜;;再論危險(xiǎn)駕駛罪的客觀方面——超前立法觀、實(shí)質(zhì)解釋論、類型思維法之運(yùn)用[J];北方法學(xué);2014年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)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?qǐng)?bào);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：2290503