“醉驾”入刑后的出罪困扰与省思

发布时间：2018-06-22 11:40

本文选题：法益侵害 + 抽象性危险　；参考：《西南大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：《刑法修正案(八)》将“醉驾”入刑之后,在司法实践中确实收到了打击犯罪,预防酒后驾车行为的良好效果,但在该罪的出罪问题上,在理论界和实务界却存在着极大的争议。其中突出问题是:(1)“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪是一律入罪还是允许反证?(2)但书条款是否能够作为“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪出罪的规范依据?(3)如果不能用《刑法》第13条进行出罪,那么该罪的限缩途径又将如何选择?这些问题严重妨碍了各地司法机关对该法条的统一适用。本文站法益侵害说的立场上,认为“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪确实存在着在具体案件中不存在抽象性危险的出罪可能,并从“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪中抽象性危险应允许反证、“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪出罪的规范途径、“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪出罪的具体程序设计三方面对争议问题进行回应,追本溯源,以求在此基础上探索本罪出罪的合理出路。第一部分通过对抽象性危险反证的合理性阐述引导出“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪出罪的理论基础。第一,抽象性危险是构成要件因素,既然是构成要件因素,就存在着在特殊情况下行为没有造成对公共安全的抽象性危险来进行出罪;第二,“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪中的抽象性危险是推定的危险,这种推定的危险因其中隐藏着具体可察的法益而在司法实务中存在着推翻的可能性;第三,允许“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪的反证并不会导致具体性危险和抽象性危险的混淆。抽象性危险是基于业已成立基础事实自动推定出的危险,存在着逻辑的跳跃,而具体性危险则需要司法机关以行为当时的具体情况作出判断,两者区别的关键在判断方法的不同。第二部分追本溯源,从实体角度上围绕“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪的规范构造展开。第一点通过与交通肇事罪、以危险方法危害公共安全罪等同样侵害公共安全法益的同类罪名进行比较,明确了“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪在刑法中的序列排位,以深刻理解危害公共安全的抽象性危险的内涵。第二点通过对“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪在司法实践中有关的概念剖析,对“道路”、“醉酒”、“主观责任”层面具体内涵进行分析。首先是“道路”内涵,笔者认为“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪中道路的界定不仅要考虑公共性的特征,而且还要同时考虑行为人驾驶行为的时间因素,综合判断行为侵害法益的抽象性危险;其次是对血液中酒精含量的标准的把握,一方面鉴定程序中存在的问题可能导致酒精含量的认定存在差错,再者行为人自身的体质在具体个案中也会使“醉酒”和现实状况发生偏差;最后,从“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪处罚的行政法中原型,参考英美法系中主观责任心态中的“轻率”的概念,认为对“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪中的责任形态没有必要加以区分。第三部分从具体的诉讼程序上构建“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪出罪的可操作性方法。从证明责任的分配角度来看,“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪中的抽象性危险是刑事推定的结果,刑事推定造成了控辩双方之间的证明责任的倒置,这样,被告方必须对推定事实——抽象性危险不存在进行证明,控方并不承担这部分事实的证明责任,法院当然也不会主动对这种事实进行审查,如果被告方没有事实证明抽象性危险现实并不存在,这样推定事实就变成了裁判事实;从对事实的证明标准来说,基于现实辩护方自身的弱势地位考量,只有将其对推定事实的反驳标准定为“优势证据”才会使“醉驾型”危险驾驶罪的出罪事实更加具有程序上的操作空间。
[Abstract]:"Criminal law amendment (eight) >" after putting "drunk driving" into punishment, it does receive a good effect in the judicial practice to combat crime and prevent drunk driving, but there are great disputes in the theoretical and practical circles on the offense of this crime. The outstanding problems are: (1) the crime of "drunk driving" dangerous driving is a crime or permission. (2) can the proviso clause be the standard basis for the crime of dangerous driving in the "drunk driving" type? (3) how will the limitation of the crime be chosen if it cannot be offended with the thirteenth article of the criminal law? These problems seriously impede the unified application of the law to this Law by the judicial organs of all over the world. It is believed that the dangerous driving crime of "drunk driving" does not exist in the specific case, and the abstract danger in the dangerous driving crime of "drunk driving type" should be permitted, the standard way of the crime of "drunk driving" dangerous driving crime and the specific program design of "drunk driving type" dangerous driving crime are designed in three aspects. In response to the issue, the author seeks to explore the rational way out for the crime on this basis. In the first part, the theoretical basis of the crime is derived from the reasonableness of the abstract hazard proof. First, the abstract danger is an important element, and since it is a component factor, it exists. In special circumstances, behavior does not cause an abstract danger to public security; second, the abstract danger in the "drunk driving" dangerous driving crime is the presumption of danger, the presumption of danger is the possibility of overthrowing in judicial practice, which is hidden in the judicial practice; and third, permits the "drunk driving" type. The proof of the crime of dangerous driving does not lead to the confusion of the concrete danger and the abstract danger. The abstract danger is based on the risk that the basic facts have been established automatically, and there is a logical jump, while the concrete danger requires the judiciary to judge the specific situation of the behavior at that time. The key to the difference between the two is the judge. The second part goes back to the source and begins with the normative structure of the dangerous driving crime of "drunk driving" from the substantive point of view. The first point is to compare the same kind of crime, such as the crime of traffic accident, the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods, and the same kind of crimes against public safety law. It is clear that the dangerous driving crime of "drunk driving" is in the criminal law. In order to understand the connotation of the abstract danger that endangers public security, the second point analyses the specific connotation of "road", "drunken" and "subjective responsibility" through the analysis of the concept of "drunk driving" dangerous driving in judicial practice. The first is the connotation of "road", and the author thinks that "drunk driving" is dangerous. The definition of road in the crime driving crime should not only consider the characteristics of public nature, but also consider the time factors of the behavior of the actor at the same time, and synthetically judge the abstract danger of the act violating the legal interest. Secondly, it is the standard of alcohol content in the blood. On the one hand, the problems in the identification procedure may lead to the determination of alcohol content. There is a mistake, and the constitution of the actor itself will also deviate from the "drunken" and the reality in a specific case. Finally, the archetype in the administrative law, which is punished by the "drunk driving" dangerous driving crime, refers to the "indiscreet" concept of the subjective responsibility mentality in the Anglo American law system, and thinks that the responsibility form of the "drunk driving type" dangerous driving crime is considered. There is no need to distinguish the state. The third part constructs the operable method of the crime of dangerous driving from the specific litigation procedure. From the point of view of the distribution of the burden of proof, the abstract danger of the "drunk driving" dangerous driving crime is the result of the criminal presumption, and the criminal presumption causes the burden of proof between the prosecution and the defense. In this way, the defendant must prove that the presumption of abstract danger does not exist, the prosecution does not bear the burden of proof of this part of the fact, and the court will certainly not take the initiative to examine the fact, and if the defendant has no facts to prove that the abstract danger does not exist, the presumption of the fact becomes a referee. In fact, on the basis of the standard of proof of fact, based on the disadvantaged position of the real defense, it is only to make the refutation standard of the presumption of facts as "the advantage evidence", which will make the crime fact of the "drunk driving" dangerous driving crime more procedural space.
【学位授予单位】：西南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】