【作者】 张明举；

【导师】 吴振兴；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 交通肇事罪现行立法及相关司法解释的颁布，引起了理论认识上的重大分歧和司法实践运用上的混乱，使其成为新刑法中争论问题最多的罪名,这种状况不利于法治统一、依法治国的顺利进行。可以说梳理遗漏、完善立法、定纷止争、指导实践是当务之急。 本文采用比较分析、实证分析、语义分析等研究方法，以犯罪构成理论、过失犯罪理论、共同犯罪理论、不作为犯罪理论为依据，对立法中的优劣得失之处进行探讨；通过对“逃逸”行为的定性分析，建议增设“见危不救罪”来对其进行独立评价，并且对设立此罪的理由作了详细的阐述；最后就该罪具体立法体系的建构进行了尝试性的探索。全文共分四个部分： 第一部分 交通肇事现行立法优点分析 与旧刑法相比，现行刑法在该罪立法方面有四点改进：一是将犯罪主体扩展到一般主体，不再仅限于交通运输人员，提高了刑法的适用性；二是增加了量刑档次，并大幅提高其法定最高刑，增强了刑罚的效用; 三是突出了对实践中的多发的“逃逸”和“逃逸致人死亡”的打击重点，凸显对这种行为的特别否定；四是强调在分清事故责任的基础上区分罪与非罪，以免惩罚面过宽。应该说，这些都是适应司法实践需要及社会形势发展的举措。 第二部分 交通肇事罪立法缺陷分析及相应梳理 本部分分七个方面对立法中有疏漏和争议的地方进行分析梳理，如在法定刑配置上应区分业务过失和一般过失；司法解释中有违犯罪构成理论和越权解释的规定，应予以修正，如将量刑情节上升为定罪情节、以无能力赔偿的数额作为定罪的标准有违平等原则。然后重点探讨了交通肇事罪共犯是否成立的问题，继而深入论证了各共同行为人因违反共同注意义务而过失造成重大危害结果成立过失共同犯罪的合理性，最后针对立法中的规定得出结论：《解释》第五条明确规定以交通肇事罪的共犯论处的情形，并不应该成立过失共同犯罪；而相反，第七条规定仅以交通肇事罪定 40<WP=47>罪处罚的情形却应该成立交通肇事罪共犯。这不能不说是立法中的欠成熟之处。在围绕“逃逸”和“逃逸致人死亡”这两个理论和实践争论的焦点问题上，本文坚持主客观相一致的原则，对此作了定性分析，肯定了“逃逸”行为之逃避履行救助义务的明确性和“逃逸致人死亡”仅限过失致人死亡这一种情形。然后，本文并不仅此就事论事，而是着眼于理论完善和实践统一的高度，提出应将逃逸行为单设一纯正不作为犯来独立评价并增设“见危不救罪”的建议，意图解决争论，正确指导实践。 第三部分 设立“见危不救罪”的可行性分析 该部分从三个方面进行了阐述。法理学方面主要从人的社会理性、个人利益与社会整体利益的一致性以及道德与法律的关系进行论证；刑法学方面从作为义务之根据和刑法基础理论上进行分析；比较法考察方面主要从大陆法系及英美法系中的现有立法例，并结合中国古代立法与当代现实对比说明设立此罪的必要性和重要性。 第四部分 设立“见危不救罪”的具体建议该部分首先明确了“见危不救罪”的内涵，然后从犯罪构成系统理论的角度对其进行界定：在犯罪客体方面，除包括重大公共安全利益，还包括特定个人的生命、健康重大利益；在犯罪的客观方面，重点说明了“紧迫的危险状态”、“有能力救助而不救助”、“无显著的危险”的合理内涵；在犯罪主体方面，从负有作为义务的来源上对其进行限定，避免刑罚的过度扩张，并认为作为义务来源之根据还应包括重大社会公序良俗方面；在犯罪主观方面，主张该罪的罪过仅限于间接故意，因为直接故意下行为目的之确定性和主观恶性之大已明显超出间接故意的程度，已非设立该罪之初衷所能包括。在法定刑设置上本文作了比较分析，并建议分一般情节和加重情节予以处罚，并扩大罚金刑的适用，同时提倡辅以其他非刑罚措施，以达惩罚与教育兼收的目的。最后，就“见危不救罪”的具体立法建议，本文就在总则和分则中的具体设计分别作了表述。总则中补充不作为犯罪之概念是为了做到罪刑法定，分则中作了较为详细的罪状及法定刑建构，并对加重情节的具体内容作了列举。 41更多还原

【Abstract】 The law on traffic crime and relating jurisdictional interpretationbring about considerable divergence of theoretical ideas and disorder injudicial practice, which makes traffic crime the most problematic ones inthe present Criminal Law. This hinders the progress of the unity and ruleof laws. It is imperative to perfect the legislation, to settle disputes andto direct the practice. This thesis discusses the advantages and disadvantages of theexisting legislation, through comparative analysis, positive analysis andliteral analysis on the grounds of the theory of constitution of crimes, thetheory of negligent crimes, the theory of joint crimes and the theory ofcriminal omission. By qualitative analysis of “escape after the traffic”,the author propose to enact “Not-Saving Crime” in order to evaluate itspecially. The author states detailed reasons for establishing this crimeand tries to research on its legislation system. The whole thesis iscomposed of four parts.Part one: Analysis on the advantages of the law on traffic crime.Compared with the former Criminal Law, the present Criminal Law isimproved in four aspects: first of all, the Criminal Law is moreapplicable, for the subject of crime is enlarged to general subject, insteadof being confined to the transportation personnel; secondly, thepunishment is more effective, for the scales are increased and maximumpunishment is aggravated; thirdly, “escape after the traffic” and“Not-Saving Crime”, which often happen in practice, are emphasizedand particularly criticized; fourthly, it is underlined that crime andnon-crime should be distinguished on the basis of making 42<WP=49>responsibilities clear in order to avoid punishing too many. All thesemeasures meet the needs of judicial practice and are suitable to thesocial development. Part two: Analysis on the disadvantages of the present law ontraffic crime. Seven sections are set to analyze the defective orcontentious clauses, among which are: occupational negligence andgeneral negligence shall be distinguished when determining the statutorypenalty; regulations breaching the theory of constitution of a crime inthe jurisdictional interpretation shall be amended, such as to makesentencing circumstances the convicting circumstances and to sentencean unable amount to compensate both breach the Principle of Equality.Whether there are traffic crimes’ accomplices is discussed emphatically,and the reasonableness of a traffic crimes’ accomplice is expounded andproved. At last, a conclusion is drawn: what is stipulated in Article 5 inthe Interpretation does not constitute a crime of joint negligence. On thecontrary, what is stipulated in Article 7 does. It has to be considered adefect of legislation. On the questions, contentious both theoreticallyand practically, of “escape” and “escape causing victim’s death”, “theprinciple of subjective and objective uniform” is insisted in this thesis.The conduct of escaping from performing salvage responsibility shall beclarified and the death caused by “escape” shall only be caused bynegligence. What’s more, the thesis proposes that the conduct of runningaway shall be established as a typical omission offense and it’snecessary to enact “Not-Saving Crime”. Part three: Feasibility analysis on “Not-Saving Crime”. Thereare three sections in this part. In jurisprudence, it is expounded andproved from the angle of man’s social reason, the uniform of individualand social interests and the relationship between morality and law. Incriminal law, it is analyzed from the angle of the grounds of acting 43<WP=50>responsibility and the basic theory of criminal law. In comparative law,the necessity and importance to establish this crime is stated byinvestigating the existing legislation both in the continental law systemand the common law system and combining ancient leg更多还原