刑法第185條之4的改革芻議

Reflections on the Reform of Article 185-4 of the Criminal Code

肇事逃逸罪的立法設計與解釋，應與交通法規要求的作為義務一併觀察，而應將其改列道路交通管理處罰條例中，但也應考量刑法的最後手段性，以彰顯該罪與僅是構成行政不法的交通違規的差異。此處，事故致人死傷的要素扮演入罪化的重要意義，除了排除僅是造成財產損失後的逃逸的可刑罰性，亦強調行為人規避履行的義務需與保護事故被害人的利益相關。亦即，該罪可以同時具有保護生命、身體與財產的功能，當行為人不顧可能存在被害人且其可能需要救助，而未察看即行逃逸，即應構成本罪，自不論被害人是否已經死亡，亦不論行為人是否知悉事故造成他人的傷害或死亡；若是行為人查看後，確認具有救助需要，或縱使確認無救助需要，卻仍選擇逃逸規避賠償者，亦應成立本罪，而只是在無救助需要的情形，將對債權根本欠缺危害可能的逃逸行為排除可罰性，並給予行為人事後補救的減免其刑機會。

The legislative design and interpretation of Hit-and-Run Offenses should be aligned with the duty to act as mandated by traffic regulations. This crime should ideally be reclassified under the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act, considering the principle of criminal law as a last resort to distinguish it from mere administrative traffic violations. The element of causing injury or death in an accident is crucial in the criminalization process. This distinction excludes punishability the scene after causing only property damage and underscores that the offender’s duty is primarily to protect the interests of accident victims.
In essence, this crime serves a multiple purpose: safeguarding life, bodily integrity, and property. If an offender flees the scene without verifying whether the victims need assistance, they should be guilty of this crime, regardless of whether the victim has already died, or the offender was aware of causing injury or death. Additionally, if an offender checks and confirms the need for assistance but still flees to avoid compensation, they should also be guilty. Conversely, if there is no need for assistance, the act of fleeing, which lacks the potential to harm creditors’ rights, should be excluded from punishability. In such cases, the offender should be given the opportunity for a reduced sentence by making amends afterward.