摘要
对于交通肇事罪“逃逸”的解释主要存在“逃避法律追究说”与“逃避救助义务说”。后者作为当今的通说,在对交通肇事罪中“肇事后逃逸”与“因逃逸致人死亡”之“逃逸”的理解存在分歧,难以形成共识。现有界定方式主要从公民大众的可接受度、明确性等角度进行事后的功利性评价,破坏了法秩序的统一性,导致司法解释与法律适用混乱,为了入罪而背离司法解释的现象频发。为保证司法解释完美契合司法实践与刑法规定,确保我国法律规范体系与刑法规定的协调一致,应对交通肇事罪中作为法定刑升格条件的“逃逸”作体系解释。根据法秩序统一性原理,遵守解释学基本原理之相同法律概念作相同教义学解释原则,应将我国《刑法》第一百三十三条中作为法定刑升格条件的两个“逃逸”作相同解释,解释为逃避前置法《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第七十条第一款对于车辆驾驶人所要求履行之附随义务;以缓和的违法一元论为立场,根据刑法所特有的目的对该附随义务进行限缩。据此,我国《刑法》第一百三十三条中“因逃逸致人死亡”应当以成立交通肇事基本犯为前提,作为“交通肇事后逃逸”之结果加重犯而存在。
There are two main explanations for“escape”of the crime of traffic accident:“escape from legal investigation”and“escape from rescue duty”.The latter,as the current general theory,has different understanding of“escape”between“fleeing the scene after traffic accident”and“running away causes a person’s death”in the crime of traffic accident,and it is difficult to form a consensus.The existing definition method mainly evaluates the utility after the fact from the perspective of acceptability and clarity of the public,which destroys the unity of the legal order,leads to the confusion of judicial interpretation and law application,and the phenomenon of deviating from judicial interpretation in order to commit a crime is frequent.In order to ensure that judicial interpretation perfectly conforms to judicial practice and provision of the criminal law,and to ensure the coordination between legal norm system and provision of the criminal law,we should do a systematic explanation of“escape”which is used as a legal conditions for upgrading punishment.According to the principle of unity of legal order and the hermeneutic principle that we should give the same doctrinal interpretation to the same legal concept,we should interpret two“escapes”which is used as a legal conditions for upgrading punishment in Article 133 of Criminal Law in the same way.It should be interpreted as evading the supplementary obligations required to be performed by the vehicle driver according to Paragraph 1 of Article 70 of Law of the People’s Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety.Based on the moderate monism of illegality,this supplementary obligation should be limited according to the specific purpose of criminal law.Therefore,in Article 133 of the Criminal Law,the establishment of“running away causes a person’s death”should be based on the basic crime of traffic accident,and“running away causes a person’s death”should exist as the aggregated consequential offense.
作者
房保国
王梓蕲
FANG Baoguo;WANG Ziqi
出处
《北华大学学报（社会科学版）》
2024年第2期87-94,154,共9页
Journal of Beihua University(Social Sciences)
关键词
交通肇事罪
逃逸
体系解释
缓和的违法一元论
结果加重犯
the crime of traffic accident
escape
systematic explanation
moderate monism of illegality
aggregated consequential offense
