【作者】 孟雪；

【导师】 王利荣；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 近年来,由于醉酒驾驶行为而导致的交通事故频发且后果严重,引发了全社会的高度共同关注。对醉驾的刑法规制质疑日渐浮出水面。深入研究醉酒驾驶行为,为“醉驾”问题在刑法学上提供解决之道,有利于较好地惩治和预防醉酒驾驶行为,缓解交通安全的严峻现状。为此,本文拟在对“醉酒驾驶行为”的深入研究基础上,探讨其在现有及修正法律框架下的解决方案,建议增设“危险驾驶罪”及“犯罪被害人救助制度”。全文由引言、正文、结语三大部分组成,其中正文包括八个部分,共计25520个字:第一部分本部分通过对张明宝案基本案情的简介,引出学界及社会对本案的四大争议。通过分析,对争议三、四给出自己的见解,争议一、二留待后文继续探讨。第二部分在这部分中,作者认为《意见》对醉酒驾驶行为人的主观罪过,一概认定为间接故意,其行为构成以危险方法危害公共安全罪是错误的。绝大多数醉酒驾驶行为人对危害后果的发生持“希望不”的态度,即过于自信的过失。第三部分首先对“酒驾”、“醉驾”的涵义进行解释,进而区分酒后驾驶和醉酒驾驶。其次,明确本文的论证对象是醉酒驾驶行为。最后,结合原因自由行为理论,阐述我国处罚醉酒驾驶行为的原理。第四部分本部分通过对黎景全案、孙伟铭案和张明宝案的比较,发现醉酒驾驶行为的共性。结合马斯洛人类需要层次理论探讨醉酒驾驶行为的本质——危险驾驶。我国当前对其法律规制明显不足,亟待改善。第五部分本部分首先简要介绍刑法中的罪过。其次,笔者认为对醉酒驾驶行为人两个阶段的罪过评价,应当具体问题具体分析。最后,本部分分析张明宝醉酒驾驶时的罪过应为过于自信的过失,而非间接故意。第六部分本部分将醉酒驾驶行为方式分成的两个阶段,称为“一次冲撞”和“二次冲撞”,并进行概念阐释及刑法分析。“一次冲撞”的醉酒驾驶行为后续的二次肇事抑或连续冲撞行为,统称为“二次冲撞”。第七部分过失以危险方法危害公共安全罪的解决之道仅可能与罪过方面相符,但明显不符合醉酒驾驶行为的客观方面。多渠道的综合解决方案中,现行行政法上的处罚较轻,以交通肇事罪论处又罪刑不均。第八部分首先,交通肇事罪的法定刑配置已为过失犯罪中最高,再提高则无法协调刑法相应章节整体法定刑的配置。其次,通过对危险驾驶罪的必要性、正当性和可行性论证,作者建议增设危险驾驶罪,并对其构成要件和法定刑进行构想。最后,本文建议增设犯罪被害人救助制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 A drunken driving behavior causing traffic accidents is frequency and the consequences are serious in recent years, it triggers the height of the whole society common attention. The question of how to regulate drunken driving in criminal law increasingly emerges. In-depth study of drunken driving behavior, for“drunken driving”problems in criminal law provides the solution, be helpful for better punishing and preventing drunken driving behavior and easing traffic safety of severe situation. Therefore, basing on thorough the research of“drunken driving behavior”, this paper discusses the existing and fixed laws under the framework of solution, the author suggests setting“dangerous driving sin”and“crime victims’relief system”.The paper consists of three major parts——preface, the body of the paper, conclusions, in the body of the paper which includes eight parts, there are 25520 words:Part One Through the introduction of the basic case of Zhang Mingbao, this part leads to the academic and social four controversy. Through the analysis, the author gives her own views of the latter two controversy, the before two controversy are both to be discussed in the latter paper.Part Two In this part, the author thinks that“the opinion”says that the subjective guilty of the drunken driving actor is indirect intentional, and he offends the crime of endangering public safety in dangerous means which is wrong. Most drunken driving actors have the“hope not”attitude to the occurrence of harmful consequences, which is the fault of over—confidence.Part Three This part first to explain the meaning of“wine driving”and“drunken driving”, and distinguish them. Secondly, to clear that the argument objects of this paper is drunken driving behavior. Finally, combining with reason free act theory, it illustrates the principle of punishing drunken driving behavior.Part Four Through the comparison of Li Jingquan case, Sun Weiming case and Zhang Mingbao case, this part discovers the generality of drunken driving behavior. Combining with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the author discusses the essence of drunken driving behavior——dangerous driving. The legal regulation to it in China is obviously deficiencies of the present situation, improving urgently. Part Five Firstly, this part briefly introduces guilty in criminal law. Secondly, we shall analysis concretely the guilty of drunken driving actor in his two phases of transgressing. Finally, it analyses the guilty of Zhang Mingbao should be over—confident, rather than indirect intentional.Part Six Drunken driving behavior is divided into two stages, called“a collision”and“second clash”, this part interprets them and analyses them in the criminal law. After“a collision”drunken driving behavior, there is second or continuous collision behavior, which called“second clash”.Part Seven The solution to the crime of endangering public safety in dangerous means of over—confidence may correspond with guilty aspects, but which does not conform to the objective aspects of the drunken driving behavior. In multi-channel integrated solutions, current administrative penalty is lighter, and to punish it in traffic offences is uneven in crime and punishment.Part Eight The legal punishment of traffic offences is already tallest in criminal negligence, if we raise it more then we can not coordinate the configuration of the whole legal punishment in its corresponding criminal chapters. Secondly, through discussing the necessity, legitimacy and feasibility of dangerous driving, the author suggests to build dangerous driving sin and to conceive of its constituents and legal punishment. Finally, this paper suggests setting crime victims’relief system.更多还原