Research On Crimes Of Drunk Driving And Excessive Electric Vehicle

China’s Criminal Law Amendment(Ⅷ)adds the crime of dangerous driving."Intentional","road","drunkness" and "motor vehicle" are the standard components of the crime of drunken dangerous driving.At present,in judicial practice,drunk driving of electric vehicles exceeding the standard is convicted and punished as dangerous driving,which is suspected of violating the principle of legally prescribed crimes and punishments.In order to dispel this doubt,it should be convicted.There are three paths to the crime of drunk driving and exceeding the standard electric vehicle.First,as far as the constituent element of "motor vehicle" is concerned,there is no basis for determining that an electric vehicle that exceeds the standard is a "motor vehicle",because laws,administrative regulations,and national mandatory technical standards do not clearly stipulate that electric vehicles that exceed the standard are "motor vehicles",and they are not included in the management scope of motor vehicles in social life,and cannot be determined based on appraisal opinions alone;Second,from the perspective of illegal cognition,the theory of the possibility of understanding illegality is reasonable in judging the perpetrator’s understanding of illegality,and the possibility of understanding illegality should be based on the standard of the actor,supplemented by the standard of ordinary people in society",in practice,the production and sale of electric vehicles exceeding the standard are not prohibited,driving the electric vehicle exceeding the standard is not recognized as illegal in other legal fields,and the actor is affected by his own conditions such as occupation and education level so that he does not have the possibility of awareness of illegality;Third,the "proviso" provides a basis for the crime of drunk driving and exceeding the standard electric vehicle,specifically by adhering to the functional positioning of the "proviso" of the "criminalization restriction theory",and integrating the spirit of the "proviso" in the process of interpreting the constituent elements.Furthermore,regardless of whether the functional positioning of the "proviso" adopts the "criminalization restriction theory" or the "criminalization standard theory",the difference is only the way in which the crime is committed,and its ultimate purpose is to convicthim.