論刑法第185條之3不能安全駕駛罪—以飲酒駕駛行為為中心

Abstract

近年來數起傷亡重大的酒駕事件，與刑法第185條之3在民國100年、102年的兩度修正，引起社會關注，有關本條的解釋方法的澄清與適用上問題的解決遂成為必要。本文擬針對條文規範本身的問題進行探究，就現行法條文字提出較為可行的解釋方法，希冀能作為將來立法修正的建議方向。 為了聚焦討論核心，本文僅就刑法第185條之3條文規範本身進行討論，並將討論重點置於本條第一項危險犯性質之探究、第一項第一款以酒精濃度為法條構成要件的適當性、及第二項致人於死或重傷此一被稱為加重結果犯之規定等三大部分。 第一部分，關於本條第一項的討論，性質上應屬於抽象危險犯，其意義為：不要求「危險」但要求「危險性」。本罪之不法核心既然在於「不能安全駕駛」，本文認為於本款適用上，仍應於個案中認定其行為之危險性，在尚未修法前，只能委諸各個司法者透過法條解釋方式如此適用本款，建議未來宜修法比照本條項第2款、第3款明文規範「不能安全駕駛」。 第二部分，本條第一項第一款將酒精濃度值入法化所引起的諸多質疑，本文從醫學評估基礎、酒測儀器品質與施測人員專業訓練、避免誤差的程序設計三方面最基本的要求進行檢討，惟均未能通過檢驗。在現行法規範下，或許能參考美國法上被告於訴訟程序中得完整挑戰酒測儀器與施測過程的程序性保障，並配合得對本款的證據證明提出「可反駁的法律推定」作為配套措施，以緩解本款的立法不當，但僅為權宜之計，更根本的做法是，將本條項三款規定刪除，修改為如同修法前以不能安全駕駛為唯一判斷標準之規定。 第三部分，在肯認本條第二項屬加重結果犯的情況下，本文認為應該嚴守對加重結果犯之三大要求，(一)基本犯罪行為（危險駕駛行為）蘊含危險性，(二)該加重結果之發生係源自於基本犯罪行為所蘊含之危險性，且必須由法官於具體個案中為實質認定，(三)主觀上行為人對加重結果發生須有過失，始能成立本條第二項。另外，建議於立法上增訂輕率過失為加重結果犯之主觀要件，以實質限縮加重結果犯之適用，並全面調整過失犯的刑度，減少故意犯與過失犯的刑度落差，以降低刑法上對於故意犯與過失犯的評價差異，更符合罪責原則，亦能減少人民對於過失犯評價不足的質疑。

There has been a big controversy over the amendment to article 185-3 since it was promulgated on June 11, 2013. This thesis will focus on the interpretation and application of article 185-3 by disassembling it into three parts, and further suggests on amending article 185-3. The first part: Article 185-3 paragraph 1 is defined as an crime of abstract danger. This type of crime is composed of the threat of the behavior, instead of accomplished danger or concrete danger. Since the core of article 185-3 is directly related to the status of “unsafe driving”, the application of subparagraph 1 should focus on the status of “unsafe driving”, rather than the breath alcohol content or the blood alcohol concentration. The second part: Article 185-3 paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 is also criticized severely. Due to the lack of medical evaluation base, the quality of alcohol detectors used, police officers trainings and error-avoiding procedures, the temporally solution is to see this subparagraph as “inconclusive or rebuttable presumption of law”. More radically, subparagraphs 1 to 3 should all be deleted, and paragraph 1 be amended to one and only criterion for “unsafe driving”. The third part: Article 185-3 paragraph 2 is mostly regarded as aggravated resulting crime. Since the legitimacy of aggravated resulting crimes has always been a debatable point, the followings are basic requirements to limit the range of it: a) the threat of the intended act (the behavior of unsafe driving) is powerful enough to develop into the aggravated result; b) the aggravated result has to be related to the intended act, which means the aggravated result should be derived from the threat of the intended act. The judge should also determine the relationship concretely in each case; c) the offender has negligence to the aggravated result. Besides, in order to solve the question about inadequate concurrences, this thesis also suggests adjusting the punishments for negligent conducts to make them connect to the punishments for intentional conducts, and revising the requisite elements of aggravated resulting crimes by adding gross negligence (culpable negligence) as the subjective component element to narrow the application of aggravated resulting crimes.