摘要
從2001年至2020年，日本關於危險駕駛的規範進行了多次修訂，旨在回應社會輿論對現行處罰不足的批判，並逐步針對危險駕駛行為制定了更全面的處罰規定。然而，由於這些修法多數由政府主導，反映出社會和被害人團體對當前法律的不滿，因此儘管這些法律似乎是對「惡劣且危險駕駛行為」的全面解方，但實際上背後仍存在諸多疑義。 在詳細探討了日本對於危險駕駛行為的規範內容後，本文以日本法為基礎，比較了我國刑法在這方面的立法和適用層面上的差異。首先，不能安全駕駛罪在我國刑法第185條之3被歸類為公共危險罪，以交通安全為保護法益，其基本行為是「對不特定多數用路人的抽象危險行為」，具有社會法益的性質，類似於日本刑法中的「公共危險型」加重結果犯。與此相對，日本的危險駕駛致死傷罪是以「對其他用路人生命、身體法益的具體危險行為」作為基本行為，屬於「個人法益型」的加重結果犯。 其次，在規範結構上，兩罪均以列舉方式將各種不同類型的駕駛行為列為基本犯罪行為，但危險駕駛致死傷罪除了酒駕、毒駕外，還列有其他七款不同類型的危險駕駛行為。相比之下，我國刑法中的不能安全駕駛罪僅包含酒精和毒品駕駛行為，而其他的危險駕駛行為，基於罪刑法定原則，亦較難被涵蓋於刑法第185條妨害公眾往來通行罪中的概括條款，可見我國法在與危險駕駛行為有關的交通犯罪的立法密度上，與日本有相當大的落差。 值得注意的是，日本的危險駕駛致死傷罪和我國的不能安全駕駛罪在2013年都經歷了大幅修法。我國在2013年修法時將「致不能安全駕駛」的要件從條文中移除，改以酒精濃度值作為唯一標準，導致了後續一連串關於限縮本罪的討論。日本在同年修法會議中亦討論是否應將「難以正常駕駛的狀態」數值化，但多數委員認為數值化可能導致不合理的適用結果。本文認為，為了確保法律適用的公平性和穩定性，如果將法律上的評價性概念替換為簡單的數值標準，將無法滿足上述功能，雖然以簡便方式處理酒駕案件有助於節省司法資源，但更為妥當的做法是通過裁判積累使抽象概念具體化。 另一方面，有鑑於日本駕駛動力車輛處罰法的相關疑義，本文建議我國在未來進一步檢視和修訂刑法第185條之3不能安全駕駛罪及第185條妨害公眾往來安全罪時，不宜全盤引進日本的危險駕駛相關規範，若立法者確實認為入罪的必要，亦宜透過修法的方式，針對道路交通管理處罰條例第43條第1項各款較為嚴重的危險駕駛行為，篩選出適切的處罰範圍。 最後，值得注意的是，除了透過刑法處罰之外，透過增進防衛性駕駛的觀念、細緻化考照制度、使各部門通力合作等，也都是有助於應對交通犯罪，提升道路安全，保障社會公眾及個人法益的有效方式。
並列摘要
From 2001 to 2020, Japan’s regulations regarding dangerous driving underwent multiple revisions to respond to societal criticism of the inadequacy of existing penalties. These amendments sought to establish more comprehensive sanctions for hazardous driving behaviors. However, since these revisions were predominantly government-led, they reflected the dissatisfaction of society and victim advocacy groups with the current laws. Despite appearing to be a thorough solution to “malicious and dangerous driving behaviors,” numerous questions remain regarding the underlying motivations. After thoroughly examining Japan’s regulations on dangerous driving behaviors, this paper, based on Japanese law, compares the legislative and application aspects of Taiwan’s criminal law in this area. To begin with, driving without the ability to drive safely is classified as a public danger crime under Article 185-3 of Taiwan’s Criminal Code. This crime aims to protect traffic safety and involves “abstract danger behaviors towards an unspecified number of road users,” bearing a social benefit nature similar to the “public danger-type” aggravated result offenses in Japan’s Penal Code. In contrast, Japan’s crime of dangerous driving resulting in death or injury is based on “concrete dangerous behaviors towards the life and bodily benefits of other road users,” categorized as an “individual benefit-type” aggravated result offense. Moreover, in terms of the regulatory structure, both crimes enumerate various types of driving behaviors as fundamental criminal acts. However, Japan’s dangerous driving resulting in death or injury crime includes seven other types of dangerous driving behaviors besides drunk and drug-impaired driving. In comparison, Taiwan’s crime of driving without the ability to drive safely includes only alcohol and drug-impaired driving behaviors. Other dangerous driving behaviors are difficult to cover under the general clause of Article 185 of the Criminal Code on obstructing public safety due to the principle of legality, which indicates significant gap between Taiwan and Japan in the legislative density of traffic crimes related to dangerous driving behaviors. It is noteworthy that both Japan’s dangerous driving resulting in death or injury crime and Taiwan's crime of driving without the ability to drive safely underwent significant amendments in 2013. During the 2013 amendment in Taiwan, the requirement of “being unable to drive safely” was removed from the text and replaced with the sole standard of blood alcohol concentration, leading to a series of discussions on narrowing the scope of the crime. In the same year, Japan's legislative discussions considered whether to quantify the state of “difficulty driving normally,” but most committee members believed that quantification might lead to unreasonable applications. This paper argues that to ensure the fairness and stability of legal application, replacing evaluative legal concepts with simple numerical standards cannot fulfill these functions. Although handling drunk driving cases simply may save judicial resources, a more appropriate approach is to concretize abstract concepts through judicial accumulation. Furthermore, given the related questions about Japan's Act on Punishment of Driving Motor Vehicles, this paper suggests that Taiwan, when further reviewing and amending Article 185-3 (driving without the ability to drive safely) and Article 185 (obstructing public safety) of the Criminal Code in the future, should not wholly adopt Japan’s dangerous driving regulations. If legislators indeed consider it necessary to criminalize certain behaviors, they should selectively introduce suitable sanctions for serious dangerous driving behaviors listed under Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act. Last but not least, besides criminal sanctions, enhancing defensive driving concepts, refining the licensing system, and promoting inter-departmental cooperation are effective ways to address traffic crimes, improve road safety, and protect both public and individual legal interests.