我國刑法第185條之3醉態駕駛罪危險概念的流變

Concept of “Gefährdungsdelikt” in Article 185-3 Drunk Driving Offenses of the Criminal Code

我國刑法第185條之3醉態駕駛罪是1999年方始進入刑法典規範的新興條文，而本罪在我國學理與實務均認為是危險犯；只是究竟是抽象危險犯或具體危險犯卻是爭論不休，而這在2013年的修法之後更加難有定論。對此，本文認為本罪的「不能安全駕駛」與「危險結果」係屬二個不同的構成要件，前者是以酒精濃度為主要的判準，而危險結果則是綜合各種情形，就本罪保護法益是否有可能受到侵害的「高度可能性」為綜合判斷。至於本罪的危險犯類型，由於不論是抽象危險犯或具體危險也都應判斷危險結果是否存在，只是前者是推定而可舉反證推翻，後者則須正面具體判斷。因此本罪的危險犯類型歸類，本文認為並不重要，因為反正危險結果不論是何種危險犯類型都要判斷。而且上述結論，本罪於2013年修法前後並無不同。 In 1999, Article 185-3 regarding drunk driving offenses was passed into the new provisions of Taiwan's Criminal Code. This crime is considered perilous based on research and experiences. Arguments have defined it as either an “abstract” or “concrete” Gefährdungsdelikt (perilous crime); however, no clear definition was reached when the law was amended in 2013. This article contends that the crimes of being “incapable of driving safely” and threatening “dangerous impacts” should be categorized as two distinct constituent elements. Capability of driving safely is determined based on blood alcohol concentration, whereas dangerous impacts are determined based on context. In either scenario, categorizing this crime as an abstract or concrete Gefährdungsdelikt, dangerous impacts shall be judged accordingly. The difference is that abstract Gefährdungsdelikt are presumed, whereas concrete Gefährdungsdelikt can be examined by evidence. Because dangerous impacts are judged ad hoc, classifying the type of crime is unnecessary. This article holds the same position regardless of the change in the 2013 amendment to Article 185-3.