【作者】 孙琳；

【导师】 侯艳芳；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 现如今,交通工具在我们的生活中扮演着重要的角色,然而交通事故的多发也引起了社会各界的关注,而醉驾行为更是层出不穷。自“醉驾行为”入刑以来,“醉酒型”危险驾驶罪的案件数量一直居高不下,“醉驾”已经取代盗窃罪,成为刑事追诉中的“第一犯罪”。当下“醉酒型”危险驾驶罪这样一个“轻微罪”却占用着过多的司法资源,对于国家、社会和个人来说都是巨大的损失。“醉酒型”危险驾驶罪在司法适用中存在醉酒判断标准的单一以及定罪标准不明晰的问题,量刑标准不统一的问题导致出现同案不同判的结果,因此对“醉酒型”危险驾驶罪的司法认定问题的讨论确有必要。对于“醉酒”的认定,一般情况下通过呼吸式检测法和抽血式检测法都存在固有缺陷,可以参照欧美法系国家引入尿检以完善检测方式,使得对酒精含量的认定更加准确;对于特殊情况“隔夜醉酒”的认定不能单单以血液中的酒精含量为标准,应当结合故意心态要素加以判断;对于“醉酒型”危险驾驶的行为方式即驾驶行为的认定除了存在因为驾驶人员启动“机动车”自身动力装置而形成的位移的判断外,还应当结合驾驶人员具有驾驶机动车的主观心理进行判断,这种认定标准也可以更好的论证“挪车行为”并不属于醉驾行为;对“醉酒型”危险驾驶行为载体即机动车的判断不应只是简单的根据种属判断,而是应当根据行为载体即车辆的整车重量、最高时速、轮胎宽度、电动机最大输出功率来界定其是否属于“机动车”;对于“醉酒型”危险驾驶的行为区域即道路的判断核心在于道路的公共性质和车辆通过这段道路时是否会带来现实危险性;对“醉酒型”危险驾驶罪罪过的认定除了应当以故意心态来认定外,可以将以逃避为目的“当场饮酒”行为和以混淆判断为目的“扰乱秩序”行为作为“醉酒型”危险驾驶罪的主观恶性加重情节进行认定。以上认定方法以及判断模式对解决司法实践中现存的疑难问题具有现实可行性。司法实践中还存在对“醉酒型”危险驾驶罪行政处罚和刑事惩戒界限不明、缓刑和罚金适用标准缺失、未对“行车速度”和“车辆类型”等要素进行全面考量,单一按照血液中酒精含量确定刑罚轻重、最高刑为拘役刑导致量刑幅度单一等诸多问题。对于以上困境,针对性地提出对策进行克服即通过对“情节显著轻微”进行统一的认定来完善“醉酒型”危险驾驶罪的行政违法和刑事犯罪的衔接;对“酒精含量”、“缓刑”适用、罚金适用进行量刑标准的统一;全面考量“车速”及“车型”这些基础要素,对量刑情节进行更细致的归类;通过对拘役刑内进行更细致的划分来增大量型幅度。更多还原

【Abstract】 Nowadays,transportation plays an important role in our lives.However,the frequent occurrence of traffic accidents has also attracted the attention of the community and the behavior of drunk driving is endless.Since the "drunk driving behavior" was sentenced,the number the ’drunken’ dangerous driving crime has remained high."Drunk driving" has replaced the crime of theft and has become the"first major crime" in criminal prosecutions.At present,a "minor crime" such as the"drunk" dangerous driving crime occupies too much judicial resources,which is a huge loss for the country,society and individuals.The "drunk" dangerous driving crime has problems of the single judgment standard for drunkenness and unclear conviction standards in judicial application.The problem of inconsistent sentencing standards has led to different convictions in the same case.So it is indeed necessary to discuss the issue of judicial identification.For the determination of ’drunkenness’,both the breathing method and the blood drawing method have inherent defects.Referring to the European and American legal systems which introduce urine tests to improve the detection methods can make the determination of alcohol content more accurate;for the special cases circumstance"overnight drunkenness" cannot be determined solely based on the alcohol content in the blood.It should be determined in conjunction with deliberate mentality elements.The determination of "drunk" dangerous driving behaviors is in addition to the judgment of the displacement caused by the existence of the motor vehicle’s own power device,and it should also be made in conjunction with the driver’s subjective psychology of driving a motor vehicle.This standard can also better demonstrate that"moving a car in short distant" does not belong to drunk driving;The judgment of the vehicle of "drunk" dangerous driving behavior should not be simply based on the judgment of species.Instead,the vehicle should be defined as a "motor vehicle" based on its weight,maximum speed,tire width,and maximum output power of the electric motor;the core of the judgment of the "drunk" dangerous driving behavior area is the public nature of the road and whether the vehicle will bring real danger when passing through this section of the road;the "drunk" dangerous driving in addition to the determination of the guilt should be determined with a deliberate mentality,the behavior of "drinking on the spot" for the purpose of evasion and "disturbing the order" for the purpose of confusing judgment can be determined as the subjective and vicious aggravation.The above identification methods and judgment models have practical feasibility for solving the existing difficult problems in judicial practice.Some problems still exist in judicial practice,such as the unclear boundaries between administrative punishment and criminal punishment for the "drunk"dangerous driving,lack of applicable standards for probation and fines,and failure to comprehensively consider factors such as "driving speed" and "vehicle type".The content determines the severity of the penalty,and the maximum penalty is criminal detention,resulting in a single range of sentencing.The targeted countermeasures are proposed to overcome the above dilemma,such as to improve the connection between administrative violations and criminal crimes of "drunk" dangerous driving crime by uniformly identifying "significantly minor circumstances";"alcohol content" and"probation" Apply and fines apply to unify the sentencing standards;comprehensively consider the basic elements of "vehicle speed" and "vehicle type" to classify the sentencing scenarios in more detail;increase the sentencing range through more detailed division of criminal detention.更多还原