輕罪治理實踐下危險作業罪的認定兼論具體危險犯的結果歸責

危險作業罪屬具體危險犯形式的結果犯，其主觀方面表現為過失，客觀方面表現為發生重大傷亡事故或其他嚴重後果的現實危險。規範論視域下危險作業罪的結果歸責判斷流程分為“現實危險的創設”和“現實危險的實現”兩個階段，即在事前結合義務違反行為和危險信號的等級確定現實危險的表徵，在事後通過規範保護目的關聯和危險回避可能性關聯來排除不值得歸責的情形。危險作業罪的設立，並非要涵攝所有違反“有關安全管理規定”的行為，而是旨在規制實踐中多發易發的三類嚴重違法違規並實質性危害公共安全的行為。在輕罪治理實踐下，司法機關既要克制大量輕微違法行為入罪的刑罰衝動，也要防止危險作業罪淪為從輕發落的避風港，應結合危險作業罪的特徵和成因“因材施治”，實現治罪與治理的統一。

The crime of dangerous operations is categorized as a specific endangerment crime, and it is also a result crime. Subjectively, it is characterized by negligence, while objectively, it involves the actual danger of causing major casualties or other serious consequences. From the perspective of normative theory, the process of determining the attribution of the results of the crime of dangerous operations is divided into two stages:“the creation of actual danger”and“the realization of actual danger”. In the first stage, the actual danger is assessed based on the violation of duties and the severity of danger signals before the event, while in the second stage, after the event, scenarios where responsibility should not be attributed are excluded through an examination of the normative protective purpose and the possibility of avoiding danger. The establishment of the crime of dangerous operations is not intended to encompass all violations of“relevant safety management regulations”. Instead, it aims to regulate three types of serious illegal and irregular behaviors that frequently occur in practice and substantially endanger public safety. In the practice of dealing with minor offenses, judicial authorities should avoid the impulse to criminalize a large number of minor illegal acts while also preventing the crime of dangerous operations from becoming a haven for lenient penalties. They should tailor their responses based on the characteristics and causes of the crime, achieving a balance between penalizing and governing such offenses.