Study On Judicial Application Of "Drunken" Dangerous Driving Crime

Based on the statistical analysis of 1210 judgment documents for the crime of "drunken type" dangerous driving in Qingdao,this paper finds that the most prominent problem in practice is the difference in sentencing between different cases,and the different sentencing circumstances applied between different districts,resulting in the severe phenomenon of different sentences in the same case,that is,the focus of this paper is how to correctly understand the different sentencing circumstances of the "drunken type" dangerous driving crime and apply them reasonably,while the determination of "motor vehicle","road" and "drunkenness" is both a circumstance that affects the severity of the sentence.At the same time,it is also the core element that affects the judgment of crime and non-crime,and it is the content that cannot be avoided in the study of the crime of "drunken type" dangerous driving,so this article not only discusses the simple sentencing circumstances,but also provides a superficial explanation of the above constituent elements.This paper argues that abstract dangerous offenders have a process of transformation into concrete danger to final actual harm results,and the factors that affect the magnitude of danger in this process are various circumstances that can be considered in sentencing.With this as a support,for the problem of not meeting the traditional "motor vehicle" identification standards such as "excessive electric vehicles",it should be determined by referring to the existing norms and following the characteristics of "motor vehicles" such as speed and weight,and for the identification of "road" in drunk driving,by comparing various identification theories,the characteristics of the "road" range must be public are deduced to distinguish,and at the same time,according to the difference in the characteristics of "motor vehicle" and the publicity of "road",resulting in different levels of danger to other road participants,to make a sentencing distinction.For the identification of drunken state,there is a time difference between the two methods of breath and blood testing,and secondly,the numerical display of the breath detection method itself is unstable,so through the introduction of foreign testing modes,it is found that corresponding auxiliary methods can be introduced to detect the drunken state of the perpetrator,at the same time,through different opinions on drunken standards and the introduction of drunken standards and drunk driving governance in other countries,the practice of establishing a separate unified standard is feasible,but at the same time there is room for refinement;In addition to the above constituent elements,due to differences in sentencing norms,such as probation application standards,resulting in differences in case adjudication results,after years of practice in various places accumulated rich experience,it is feasible to establish a unified and clear probation application standard,and even a unified sentencing norm,at the same time,the difference in understanding of different concepts between different courts,the difference in the application of circumstances between different courts,also lead to the difference in sentencing in different cases The sentencing circumstances that should and should not be applied to the crime of dangerous driving,and starting from the fact that "unlicensed and unlicensed" does not automatically increase the risk and the cause of "prepayment of fines",exclude them from the applicable sentencing circumstances for the crime of "drunken type" dangerous driving,and then clarify the circumstances,such as the sentencing scale of different types of traffic accidents in the crime of "drunken type" dangerous driving,so as to achieve the basic demands of equality before the criminal law and compatibility of criminal responsibility and punishment.