| 摘要: | 不能安全駕駛罪，在最新一波2019、2022年的修法，有比較大的改變。例如加入了加重結果犯的立法，以及再犯加重處罰的條例。不能安全駕駛罪本來屬於行政罰的範疇，但後來被納入刑法中加以規範，足見立法者認為利用刑法的威嚇性，才能有效嚇阻酒後駕車。而在本罪正式刑法化後，從當初以酒精值為標準的立法，變成嚴密的透過加重結果、再犯加重等來圍堵犯罪，進一步保障用路人的安全與生命保障。這樣的立法，揭示的是民意立法已經是個不容忽視的趨勢，也揭示了民眾與立法者對於酒後駕車不能容忍的態度與決心。因此本文爬梳不能安全駕駛罪的立法沿革，可以看出每次的修法都源於一場酒後駕車的大事件發生，立法也越來越嚴謹，除了不斷降低酒測值的標準外，也透過加重結果、再犯加重處罰條例來規範本犯罪。本文進一步也做本罪構成要件的探討，例如抽象危險犯、保護法益、行為樣態、客觀處罰條件等，都可以看見立法者在構成要件詳細闡述了防範酒後駕車的痕跡。最後本文觀察司法判決（著重在再犯的量刑），發現還是有量刑過輕的問題。雖然司法獨立，但是否司法已經能夠跟上立法與民意的腳步，仍有疑義。本文認為為了要確實的防堵酒醉駕車，且亂世用重典，不能安全駕駛入罪化的趨勢和效果不能被磨滅，因此立法和司法需要更謹慎地回應民意期待。
The crime of unsafe driving has undergone major changes in the latest wave of revisions in 2019 and 2022. For example, legislation for aggravating consequential offenses has been added, as well as provisions for aggravating penalties for repeated offenses. The crime of unsafe driving originally belonged to the category of administrative punishment, but it was later incorporated into the criminal law to be regulated, which shows that legislators believe that the use of the intimidation of the criminal law can effectively deter drink-driving. After the official criminalization of this crime, the original legislation based on alcohol as the standard has become a strict containment of crimes through aggravated results and repeated offenses, and further protects the safety and life of passers-by. Such legislation reveals that public opinion legislation has become a trend that cannot be ignored, and also reveals the intolerable attitude and determination of the public and legislators towards drunk driving. Therefore, this article reviews the legislative history of the crime of unsafe driving. It can be seen that every amendment to the law stems from a major incident of drinking and driving, and the legislation is becoming more and more rigorous. Aggravated results and re-offending aggravated punishment regulations to regulate this crime. This article further discusses the constituent elements of this crime, such as abstract dangerous crime, protection of legal interests, behavior patterns, objective punishment conditions, etc. It can be seen that the legislators elaborated the traces of preventing drunk driving in the constituent elements. Finally, this paper observes judicial decisions (focusing on the sentencing of recidivism), and finds that there is still a problem of too light sentences. Although the judiciary is independent, it is still doubtful whether the judiciary has been able to keep pace with legislation and public opinion. In the end, this paper suggests that in order to prevent drunk driving, and to use heavy regulations in troubled times, the trend and effect of criminalizing unsafe driving cannot be erased. Therefore, legislation and judiciary need to respond more carefully to public expectations. |
