妨害安全驾驶罪结果与行为的实质标准及危险犯类型——与以危险方法危害公共安全罪对照

On the Substantive Standards of the Results and Acts of the Crime of Obstructing Safe Drivingand its Types of Offenses:In Contrast with the Crime of Harming Public Safety by Dangerous Methods

司法实践中,如何区分妨害安全驾驶罪中的“危及公共安全”与以危险方法危害公共安全罪中的“危害公共安全”,以及前罪中的“干扰公共交通工具正常行驶”与后罪中的“其他危险方法”,存在较大难度。在刑法理论上,将妨害安全驾驶罪归为具体危险犯还是抽象危险犯存在争议。“危及公共安全”意指和缓、可控且危险现实化的内容轻微的“一般公共危险”,轻于“危害公共安全”所意指的具体公共危险。“干扰公共交通工具正常行驶”是对行为手段的限定,是指行为足以使公共交通工具(短暂)脱离原本的正常行驶状态,轻于“其他危险方法”所要求达到的足以使公共交通工具失控的程度。形式上明文规定构成要件危险结果,实质上要求现实性地存在结果危险的犯罪是具体危险犯,因此,妨害安全驾驶罪是具体危险犯而非抽象危险犯。“准抽象危险犯”概念本身存疑,且妨害安全驾驶罪也不符合“准抽象危险犯”的构造特点。同时,毋需将妨害安全驾驶罪称为“准具体危险犯”,因为具体危险犯中的“具体危险”本就包括危险程度较低的“一般危险”在内。

In judicial practice,it is difficult to distinguish between“endangering public safety”and“harming public safety,”and between“interfering with the normal operation of public transportation”in the crime of obstructing safe drivingand“other dangerous methods”in the crime of“harming public safety by dangerous methods.”In criminal law theory,it is disputed whether the crime of obstructing safe driving is concrete potential damage offense or abstract potential damage offense.The result of the crime of obstructing safe driving is low public risk instead of concrete public risk.The nature of this offense is making public transportation(even in a short time)out of its original normal driving state,which is less severe than making public transportation out of control.The results of the risk are clearly stipulated in concrete potential damage offense.Therefore,the crime of obstructing safe driving is concrete potential damage offense.The concept of“quasi-abstract potential damage offense” itself is doubtful, and the crime of obstructing safe driving does not conform to the structural characteristics of “quasi-abstract potential damage offense. ” The crime of obstructing safe driving is not “quasi-concrete potential damage offense” because “concrete potential damage” include “low-risk” offense.