作者：     2016-12-28

【摘  要】近年来，随着市场经济和我国交通运输业的蓬勃发展，交通肇事案件逐年增多，交通肇事逃逸案件也呈上升趋势，严重地危害了人民群众的生命健康和财产安全，已成为一个不容忽视的社会问题。因此，对交通肇事后逃逸相关问题进行研究具有非常重要的意义。本文结合司法案例从交通肇事逃逸的主观方面、客观方面及空间要素等方面对交通肇事逃逸作了界定，接着针对我国法律和现行司法解释对交通肇事逃逸行为分类的角度进行了具体、深入的分析及总结，最后提出了完善我国交通肇事逃逸问题立法的对策，以期更好地贯彻罪行法定原则及罪责刑相适应原则，更加有效地打击交通肇事逃逸行为，切实维护国家法律的权威。

【关键词】交通肇事 逃逸 界定 对策

引言

交通肇事罪是指违反交通运输管理法规，因而发生重大事故，致人重伤、死亡或者使公私财产遭受重大损失的行为。近年来，随着市场经济和我国交通运输业的蓬勃发展，交通肇事案件逐年增多，交通肇事逃逸案件也呈上升趋势，严重地危害了人民群众的生命健康和财产安全，已成为一个不容忽视的社会问题。因此，对交通肇事后逃逸相关问题进行研究具有非常重要的意义。

对于交通肇事逃逸行为，我国1979年通过的第一部刑法典并未予以专门规定。但是，实践中，有很多人在交通肇事后，畏罪潜逃，给案件的侦查工作造成很大困难，尤其是有的人当场致人重伤，应当抢救并且能够抢救也不抢救，畏罪逃跑，以致被害人因丧失抢救时间而未能避免死亡，后果和情节十分严重，必须予以严惩。1987年8月12日，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院联合发布的《关于严格依法处理道路交通肇事案件的通知》中才将“犯交通肇事罪，畏罪潜逃”作为从重处罚的情节规定下来。1997年刑法在第133条特别规定，“交通肇事后逃逸或者有其他特别恶劣情节的，处三年以上七年以下有期徒刑；因逃逸致人死亡的，处七年以上有期徒刑。”这一特别规定引起了刑法理论界对交通肇事逃逸问题的广泛关注，专门研究交通肇事逃逸案件如何定性处理亦成为了司法实践中的热点问题之一。由于交通肇事逃逸问题的涉及到很多理论上的难题，导致了在司法实践中处理此类案件时意见不一。因此，2000年11月10日，最高人民法院发布了《最高人民法院关于审理交通肇事刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》（以下简称《解释》），对包括交通肇事逃逸在内的交通肇事刑事案件的有关问题作了比较全面、详尽的规定。《解释》对于统一指导司法实践无疑具有重大意义，但并未结束刑法理论对交通肇事逃逸行为的进一步探讨，而且其本身的一些具体规定反而引起刑法理论界与实务界的巨大争议。因此，本文试图对交通肇事逃逸行为及其相关问题进行系统、专门的研究，并就争议问题提出自己的观点，以期促进我国刑法理论和刑事立法的完善。

一、交通肇事逃逸的界定

交通肇事罪，是我国刑法规定的责任事故型过失犯罪之一。我国《刑法》第133条规定：“违反交通运输管理法规，因而发生重大事故，致人重伤、死亡或者公私财产遭受重大损失的，处3年以下有期徒刑或者拘役；交通运输肇事后逃逸或者有其它特别恶劣情节的，处3年以上7年以下有期徒刑；因逃逸致人死亡的，处7年以上有期徒刑。”这一规定中，规定了三种量刑幅度，即针对一般交通肇事、交通肇事后逃逸和“因逃逸致人死亡”。

目前，刑法学界对交通肇事逃逸概念的认识不一，这无疑给交通肇事后逃逸行为的认定带来了困难。目前就法律、相关司法解释以及学术界的探讨来看，一般存在三种观点：第一种是根据1995年6月20日公安部关于《交通肇事逃逸案件查缉工作规定》第2条的规定：交通肇事后逃逸案件，是指发生道路交通事故后，当事人故意驾驶车辆或弃车逃离交通事故现场的案件。“逃逸”即是逃离事故现场的行为。第二种是最高人民法院《关于审理交通肇事刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第2条的规定：“交通运输肇事后逃逸”，是指行为人具有本解释第2条第1款规定和第2款第（1）至（5）项规定的情形之一，在发生交通事故后，为逃避法律追究而逃跑的行为。第三种是陈兴良《刑法疏议》中指出的，“逃逸是指发生交通事故后，不依法报警保护现场等待处理，而是私自逃跑，逃避法律追究的行为。”

应当讲，这三种表述是从不同的角度，来看待交通肇事后的逃逸行为。都有一定的合理性，但都未能全面地概括出交通肇事后逃逸行为的含义。笔者认为判断一行为是否属于“交通肇事后逃逸”，应从以下几方面加以分析：

（一）交通肇事后逃逸的主观方面

交通肇事后逃逸的主观动机是行为人明知发生了交通事故，为逃避抢救义务以及逃避责任追究而逃跑。这种动机是积极的心理活动。虽然交通肇事罪是过失犯罪，但仅就逃逸行为而言，具有直接的行为故意。因此只有行为人对肇事行为明知，同时又有逃逸的直接犯意，才构成交通肇事后逃逸。如果行为人没有意识到交通事故的发生而离开现场，则不能认定为“交通肇事后逃逸”。如：孙某驾驶两轮摩托车驮载其朋友刘某（二人均饮酒过量）超速行驶时，因路上颠簸，刘某从摩托车上跌落头部着地，致颅脑损伤而当场死亡。而当时孙某对此一无所知，仍然继续驾车狂奔，直至被人发现将其截获。本案中，孙某虽然离开了现场，但因其主观上对刘某坠地身亡这一交通事故并不“明知”，故不宜认定其“交通肇事后逃逸”，只能认定其构成一般交通肇事罪。

需要强调的是，我们这里所说的“明知”，是指行为人“知道”或者“应当知道”，如果行为人“应当知道”自己的行为造成交通事故而装作不知道，逃离事故现场的，仍应认定为“交通肇事后逃逸”。当然，实践中肇事者逃逸的动机也有其他表现，如害怕遭到被害人亲友及其他围观群众的殴打而逃跑等。这些肇事者如果在逃离现场后，很快通过报告领导或报警等方式，愿意接受法律的处理，这种情形必须在司法实践中加以区别对待。因为从主观动机来看，是对现场后果的害怕所致。相反，如果肇事者由于害怕遭到殴打而逃跑，但没有报案的，对于这种情况，笔者认为，应当以逃逸论处。因为，法律把逃逸行为作为一个从重处罚情节，是考虑到如果能够使现场完好无损有助于划清责任，如果行为人逃逸的话，显然不利于事故的解决此其一；其二，行为人在逃跑后不予以报案，说明他对于事故的后果采取了一种放任的态度，其主观恶性及人身危险性相对于不逃逸来看显然要大得多，所以，这种情况不认定逃逸显然是罪与责不相适应。因此，笔者认为，这种情况应当认定为逃逸。

还有一种情况即行为人对交通肇事情况不明知而继续行驶，离开事故现场，在这种情况下，行为人的主观方面是正常行驶行为的继续，不能认定为“逃逸”。所以，无论何种情形，行为人在逃逸时都必须明知自己的行为造成了交通事故的发生，并对逃逸行为有直接的故意，这是行为人的主观方面。

（二）交通肇事后逃逸的客观方面

即交通肇事后逃逸行为必须符合法律规定的情形。从刑法理论来看，认定行为人是否构成犯罪，最直接的便是对行为的客观方面予以认定。对交通肇事后逃逸的行为，最高人民法院的《解释》中规定了在五种情形的基础上而逃跑的行为。这就可以明确交通肇事后逃逸是作为交通肇事罪量刑的从重情节来规定的。也就是说如果行为人的先前行为没有违反交通运输管理法规，或者虽有交通违规行为但该违规行为与结果没有因果关系，或者行为人在交通事故中仅负同等责任或者次要责任，或者交通行为在所造成的结果尚未达到交通肇事罪基本犯的定罪标准的，或者在负事故全部责任或主责的情况下仅致1人重伤，但又不具备酒后驾驶、无执照驾车、无牌照驾车等《解释》规定的情形之一的，即便行为人事后有逃逸行为，也不能认定为交通肇事后逃逸。

另外，行为人的交通肇事行为必须达到“致人重伤、死亡或者使公私财产遭受重大损失”的程度，才能适用这个规定，这是认定交通肇事后逃逸的前提和基础。如果行为人没有造成上述严重后果而逃逸的，则不应认定该行为人“交通肇事后逃逸”，仅能作为治安处罚的从重情节考虑。如：个体司机吴某驾驶出租轿车超速行驶时，将横穿公路的行人王某撞倒，致王某昏迷在地，吴某以为王某己经死亡，便驾车逃逸。后经医学鉴定，王某只受了轻微伤。本案中吴某虽然肇事后逃跑，但不宜认定为“交通肇事后逃逸”。

（三）交通肇事后逃逸行为的空间要素

即交通肇事后逃逸行为是否仅限于“逃离事故现场”？在公安部关于《交通肇事逃逸案件查缉工作规定》的第2条中表述为“逃离交通事故现场”，这样的表述是欠妥的。在司法实践中就有这样的情形即行为人在交通肇事后虽然没有逃离现场（有的是不可能逃跑），但是在将伤者送到医院后或在等待交警部门处理时畏罪逃跑，这种逃跑行为如何认定？显然无论从主观方面还是客观方面都是符合交通肇事后逃逸行为的构成的，也就应当受到法律的严惩。在实践当中，法院在审理交通肇事案件时，有的法官往往认为交通肇事罪是一种过失犯罪，行为人的主观恶性并不深，因此，对其处理不宜过重，具体把握尺度也宜宽不宜严，所以要对逃逸行为的时间和空间作必要的限定即事故发生之时和事故发生的现场，在这个时间和空间内逃跑的，才能认定为逃逸。但是笔者认为逃逸者既然选择逃逸，说明行为人在主观上具有相当严重程度的恶性，应该认定为逃逸，这也是在一定程度上贯彻了罪责刑相适应原则，因此，在认定时应适中，而不是过严或过宽，所以《解释》第3条规定是较为合理的。“交通肇事后逃逸”是指肇事后“为逃避法律追究而逃跑的行为”，而不仅限于“逃离事故现场”。此外，对交通肇事后逃逸行为的主体规定，是只要符合一般主体即可。

因此，从以上几方面分析来看，笔者认为，交通肇事后逃逸行为较为妥当的表述应当是：行为人在发生了构成交通肇罪的交通事故后，行为人出于逃避抢救义务或逃避责任追究等动机而逃跑的行为。

二、交通肇事逃逸的类型

根据修订后刑法第133条关于交通肇事罪的规定及最高人民法院司法解释的规定，交通肇事后逃逸有三种情况，一是作为定罪情节的逃逸；二是作为加重情节的逃逸；三是致人死亡的逃逸。这三种逃逸在定罪量刑中的作用是不相同的，内在含义也是有差别的，下面笔者将对此三种逃逸行为分别加以分析。

（一）定罪情节的逃逸

定罪情节的逃逸是指《解释》第2条第2款第（6）项的规定，交通肇事致一人以上重伤的，若不具备（1）至（2）项规定的情形，本不构成犯罪，但若“为逃避法律追究而逃离事故现场的”就构成犯罪。这显然是把交通肇事后的逃逸行为作为交通肇事罪的构成要件了。

笔者认为，刑法第133条只是把交通肇事后逃逸作为第二档法定刑的加重处罚情节加以规定的，并未把它作为犯罪的构成要件，在第一档犯罪构成的基本要件中，只规定了违反交通运输管理法规和致人重伤、死亡或者使公私财产遭受重大损失这两个要件，没有将交通肇事后逃逸作为交通肇事罪的构成要件，因此，《解释》将交通肇事后逃逸规定为交通肇事罪的构成要件，超限了司法解释权限，属于越权解释。另外，根据我国的罪刑法定原则，在刑法中还没有对实施犯罪行为或者违法行为后的逃跑行为单独定罪处罚的规定，就交通肇事后的逃逸行为而言，如果对此有必要予以犯罪化评价，可以说凡是实施刑法规定的任何一种犯罪后而逃逸的行为，都有予以犯罪化的必要，但是刑法并没有这样规定，因此逃逸行为如果脱离已经构成交通肇事罪的先前行为，其本身就不具有独立评价的价值。

（二）加重情节的逃逸

为了方便与致人死亡逃逸相区分，我们将把加重情节的逃逸称为单纯逃逸行为。

所谓逃逸即为躲避不利于自己的环境或事物而离开。作为刑法第133条第二档加重情节的单纯逃逸行为需要同时具备主、客观方面的特征。根据《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第70条规定，在道路上发生交通事故，车辆驾驶人应当立即停车，保护现场，造成人身伤亡的，车辆驾驶人应当立即抢救受伤人员，并迅速报告执勤的交通警察或者公安机关交通管理部门，因抢救受伤人员变动现场的，应当标明位置。据此，我们可以看出，发生交通事故的当事人，在发生交通事故后，因自己的肇事行为而引起的作为义务如立即停车、保护现场、抢救伤员等等。肇事者为逃避法律追究而逃离事故现场的行为，实质上是一种应当履行且有能力履行而不履行法定义务的不作为行为。

根据刑法第133条第二档的规定，单纯逃逸行为的构成要件主要有以下几个：

（l）加重情节的单纯逃逸行为必须以交通肇事罪的成立为前提

单纯的情节加重犯是由基本罪结合单纯的加重情节构成，并由分则明文规定了较重的法定刑。所谓基本罪是指行为人实施的行为已经符合刑法分则规定的某种犯罪一般情节的规定要件，而单纯的严重情节，虽然超越了基本罪的构成范围即并不属于基本罪的构成要件，但这种超越并不能改变或者减少基本犯的构成要素。情节加重犯中的单纯严重情节是与基本犯相对而言的，其本身只在量刑中发挥价值，而量刑的过程必须建立在基本犯罪事实完全具备的前提之下。只有在基本犯已经构成的情况下，才有探讨单纯情节加重犯构成的可能。基本犯罪与单纯的加重情节是单纯情节加重犯中密不可分的两个有机组成部分，缺一不可，其中基本犯罪是单纯加重情节的前提或基础，而单纯加重情节无非是其上的粘着物，不能脱离基本犯而独立存在。

（2）单纯逃逸行为的客观表现

逃逸行为客观方面表现为逃脱、躲避，在司法实践中往往表现为自肇事现场逃离。如张某于1985年10月2日驾车途经某县城，在灯光较暗的道路上，因无证驾驶，张某不敢打开车灯，也不敢鸣喇叭，超速行驶将一行人撞死。案发后，张某继续逃跑，后被抓获。本案中，张某因无证驾驶违反道路交通运输管理法规，而发生致一人死亡的重大交通事故，符合交通肇事罪的构成要件，即交通肇事罪成立。肇事后，张某不但不履行立即停车，报告警察，实施抢救伤者等义务，反而驾车逃跑，其行为是典型的交通肇事后的单纯逃逸行为。但是在某种特定的场合下，肇事人在犯罪现场的行为也可视为逃逸。如甲盗开汽车游玩，在行驶途中将乙撞成重伤，甲见公路无人，在与附近医院取得联系后，隐藏于道路旁的树丛中，等救护人员前来将被害人送往医院后逃走，此时，甲的行为仍构成逃逸。因为虽然甲在肇事后并未逃离事故现场，但藏匿起来不履行抢救及报告警察等作为义务而逃避法律追究的行为完全符合逃逸的客观要件。另外，有的肇事者将被害人送往医院后，留下联系方法后离去，如果留下的是虚假的联系方法，则等同于虽尽了抢救义务但仍然逃避法律追究的情形，也属于肇事后逃逸。笔者认为，后两种行为虽然属于法律规定的单纯逃逸情形，但与第一个例子中的典型单纯逃逸行为还是有区别的，第一个例子中行为人未采取任何措施而直接从肇事现场逃离的行为表现出行为人恶劣的主观恶性；而后两种情形肇事者虽亲自履行救助义务，但是通过主动联系医院救助受害人的行为表现出肇事者只是为了逃避法律追究，对受害人仍有怜悯之心。因此，上述三种情形，尽管均符合第二档的法定刑，具体量刑上还是应有所区别的。

（3）单纯逃逸行为的主观动机

前面己经提到交通肇事后逃逸并不仅仅是单纯逃离现场的客观行为，它是在行为人主观心理支配下所实施的危害行为，从行为人的主观心理上说，其在肇事后具有逃避抢救义务或者逃避肇事责任追究的动机，从而导致了逃逸故意的产生。如果缺乏这种特定的动机，行为人离开现场的行为就不具有交通肇事逃逸行为的性质。例如笔者办理过的一个交通肇事逃逸案件： 2006年10月25日夜9时55分许，张某酒后驾驶自己工作单位的小型普通货车，在台州市椒江区75线省道自西往东行驶至椒江区前所街道上徐村桥头地段时，碰撞了在该路段自西往东由王某某（男）所骑的人力三轮车，三轮车后厢乘客是王某某（女），造成了王某某（男）受伤、王某某（女）受重伤经送医院抢救途中死亡的交通事故。事故发生后，张某没有停车查看，直接驾车离开现场。第二天凌晨，公安机关通过排查将张某抓获。经认定，张某负此次事故的全部责任。一审法院认为，被告人张某无视道路交通管理法规，酒后驾车致一人死亡，且肇事后驾车逃离现场，张某的行为与被害人王某某（女）的死亡后果有直接因果关系，其行为已构成交通肇事罪，且具有交通肇事逃逸加重情节，判处有期徒刑三年六个月。被告人张某不服一审判决，委托笔者担任其二审辩护人，并以原判决认定事实不清、判定肇事后逃逸证据不足为理由提起上诉，请求二审法院依法改判。二审法院经开庭审理，认为原判认定张某犯交通肇事罪的事实不清，裁定撤销一审的判决，并发回重审。辩护过程中，笔者以当张某是否有逃避法律追究的主观故意为焦点，结合案发时的路况、天气、肇事车的行驶路线和位置、车辆所撞击的部位、肇事车的保险情况、回家后有无异常表现及受害人所驾驶的人力三轮车有无反光装置及其所穿的衣服有无反光材料等情况，共列举了十一条理由来说明当事人当时确实没有发现自己撞到了受害人及其车辆，并不具有交通肇事逃逸的主观故意，肇事人张某自己也陈述，案发时自己仅以为车子擦碰到了路边的石头，故心里并不在意，而直接驰离开场，公诉机关不能提供肇事人张某已明知撞到了受害人，或者明知已经发生足以构成交通肇事罪的交通事故的相关证据，故公诉机关指控肇事人张某构成交通肇事后逃逸证据不足。一审法院对本案重新进行开庭审理，并完全采纳了笔者所提出的关于认定张某交通肇事后逃逸证据不足的辩护观点，判处张某犯交通肇事罪，判处有期徒刑二年，缓刑二年六个月。

（三）致人死亡的逃逸

因逃逸致人死亡是新刑法增设的相对于原交通肇事罪加重处罚的一个量刑情节。如何理解该加重处罚情节，刑法理论上和司法实践中目前尚未存在统一的观点。笔者认为，因逃逸致人死亡是指行为人在交通肇事致人重伤后，过失不履行救助义务致使伤者因得不到治疗而死亡的情形。重点强调的是行为人不履行救助义务，这样可以有效消除理解上的歧义。致人死亡逃逸的构成要件如下：

（l）致人死亡逃逸的主观要件

刑法第133条规定因逃逸致人死亡，处七年以上有期徒刑，立法者将逃逸的复杂情况忽略其罪过形式笼统地作为量刑加重情节规定，给人以立法过于粗糙的感觉，因而理论上有深入探讨的必要。

刑法只规定“因逃逸致人死亡的”的字样，这里“人”的范围包括哪些，是原来的被撞伤者，还是肇事者在逃逸过程中撞死的其他人，还是二者兼而有之？对“人”的范围理解不同，将直接导致对“因逃逸致人死亡”的主观罪过理解的不同。因此，笔者将结合“人”的范围的理解来探讨“因逃逸致人死亡”的主观罪过问题。“人”的范围理论上主要有三种不同的观点：第一，这里的“人”只限于先前肇事中的被撞伤者。第二，这里的“人”仅指肇事者逃逸过程中致死的其他人。第三，这里的“人”既可指第一次肇事中的受伤者又可指逃逸过程中的被致死者。笔者认为，实践中确实会发生交通肇事逃逸后的连环肇事案件，但是是否一律适用“因逃逸致人死亡”这一条款呢？行为人肇事后逃逸再次肇事致人死亡，笔者认为，受害人虽然是在行为人逃逸过程中死亡的，但死亡的根本原因不在于逃逸行为即逃逸行为对再次肇事中受害人的死亡没有原因力。其死亡的根本原因是行为上的再次肇事行为。在这种情形下，行为人再次发生交通肇事而致人死亡，这完全是行为人又实施了一个新的独立于先前交通肇事行为的交通肇事罪或故意（过失）杀人罪，而非刑法第133条中“因逃逸致人死亡”所指的交通肇事罪的加重情节。基于以上分析，笔者认为，“因逃逸致人死亡”中的“人”的范围应仅限于原来的被撞伤者，其主观罪过应仅限于过失。

（2）致人死亡逃逸的客观要件

首先，客观上必须有逃逸行为的存在。其次，逃逸行为必须与死亡结果之间具有因果关系。即受害者的死亡与肇事者的逃逸之间存在刑法上的因果关系。如果被害人的死亡结果已由行为人先前的交通肇事行为所致，行为人事后逃逸，对行为人只能适用交通肇事罪的第二个量刑档次，同样，如果有足够证据证明，事后逃逸的行为人交通肇事撞伤被害人后，即使立即救助也无法挽回被害人生命的，也不能适用“因逃逸致人死亡”情节，因为被害人的死亡仍是先前的交通肇事行为直接导致的，不救助义务对死亡的发生没有原因力。

三、完善我国交通肇事逃逸问题立法对策思考

（一）单独设立“交通肇事后不予救助”罪

建议我国就有关逃逸行为立法时，设立“交通肇事后不予救助”罪，同时，将现行刑法第133条第三量刑情节删去，将最高院2000年《解释》废止。“交通肇事后不予救助”罪的犯罪构成如下：

1、侵犯的直接客体是复杂客体，即他人的生命健康权和身体权。

2、本罪的主观方面是间接故意，即肇事后逃逸放任受害人死亡或重伤的发生。

如果行为人采取积极的作为，如倒车扎人、故意拖行、转移或隐藏受害人，则构成直接故意，不属于本罪调整的范围。

3、本罪的客观方面，是交通肇事参与人在交通事故发生后，逃离现场或不予救助伤者，造成他人重伤或死亡的行为。

4、本罪的主体，是一般主体，既包括从事交通运输的人员，也包括非从事交通运输的人员，还包括单位主管人员、车辆所有人、承包人或乘车人。

交通肇事行为是引发行为人救助义务的先行行为，那么，行为人对交通事故具有过错是否应当视为“交通肇事后不予救助罪”的构成要件？换言之，如果行为人在交通肇事中具有过错、但是未能构成交通肇事罪，该行为人能否构成“交通肇事后不予救助罪”？再进一步来说，如果行为人对事故无过错，那么该行为人能否成为“交通肇事后不予救助罪”的主体？在已经设立“肇事逃逸”罪的我国台湾地区，上述问题一直存在争论。理清上述两个问题，对我国未来的“交通肇事后不予救助”罪实有必要。笔者认为，“交通肇事后不予救助”罪是独立于交通肇事罪的犯罪，行为人的肇事行为能否构成交通肇事罪、行为人对肇事有无过错等，都与“交通肇事后不予救助罪”的成立无关。

首先，从立法目的而言，“交通肇事后不予救助”罪的立法目的有二：一是保护受害人的生命和健康权，二是阻止逃逸人逃避法律责任。在保护受害人生命权和健康权的前提之下，认为无过错或非主要过错肇事人亦有救助被害人义务，是有根据的。作为交通肇事的参与人，肇事一旦出现他人死伤的结果，其死伤的原因与行为人都有着关系，《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第七十条规定：“在道路上发生交通事故，车辆驾驶人应当立即停车，保护现场；造成人身伤亡的，车辆驾驶人应当立即抢救受伤人员，并迅速报告执勤的交通警察或者公安机关交通管理部门。因抢救受伤人员变动现场的，应当标明位置。乘车人、过往车辆驾驶人、过往行人应当予以协助。”因此，不论在法律还是道义上，行为人都具有救助的义务；如果行为人不作救助而逃逸，应予以惩罚，这是设立本罪的意义所在。

其次，交通肇事案件具有特殊性，即受害人急需救助的迫切性和事故责任判定的缓慢性相冲突。肇事当事人不可能在当场立即就己方有无过错以及负多重责任进行判断，即使能作出也无法证明其准确性，在这种情况之下，面对重伤濒临死亡的受害人，行为人的救助义务是无可推却的。如果认为只有能构成交通肇事罪的或者是对交通肇事具有过错的行为人才有救助义务，那么就存在着一个判断的程序和一个相应的等待时间，但是在受害人生命垂危的事故现场不可能有这样的等待时间的。在此情况下，过错责任未明确的行为人拒绝救助受害人，造成受害人死亡，但因该行为人对肇事没有过错或交通肇事罪不能成立，而使行为人不必受谴责，在情理上让人难以接受的。我们可以设想，如果自信无过错的肇事者，可以对负重伤的车祸受害人视若无睹，随意离开事故现场，那将是对法治的嘲讽。

由此可见，行为人对交通事故具有过错并非“交通肇事后不予救助罪”的构成要件。即使行为人对肇事没有过错或者有过错但不够成交通肇事罪，只要符合前文所述“交通肇事后不予救助罪”的四个构成要件，仍然能成为该罪的主体。

（二）作好新罪与现行刑法第133条的衔接

在“交通肇事后不予救助罪”设立以后，新罪的设定与现行刑法第133条的规定如何衔接？对于该问题，学者论著中涉及的不多，笔者认为，由于交通肇事逃逸致人死伤属于间接故意犯罪，故此相关行为应定何种罪名，应当从逃逸行为造成的结果来考察。逃逸行为的结果可能出现四种情况：一是不构成交通肇事罪又没有死亡或重伤结果的逃逸；二是构成交通肇事而没有死亡或重伤结果的逃逸；三是不构成交通肇事而产生了死亡或重伤结果的逃逸；四是构成交通肇事罪又产生死亡或重伤结果的逃逸。由于前两种情形没有与致人死亡或重伤的结果相结合，即使行为人具有某种“间接故意”的意识因素与意志因素，但是这种间接故意没有与危害结果相结合，不符合间接故意犯罪的构成条件，因而不具有独立的构成犯罪行为的价值，而后两种情况的逃逸，既有交通肇事后的逃逸行为，又有与逃逸，相关的结果存在，故此应当归入新罪的调整范畴。

结合对逃逸结果的考察，笔者认为，对于现行刑法第133条，应当将第三个量刑情节删除，保留第二量刑情节，上文所述情况二可以由第二量刑情节调整；而情况三和四则可归入新罪调整。对于情节一，由于既不构成交通肇事罪也不符合新罪的构成要件，可作为一般的违法行为处理。

结语：

随着社会的飞速发展和人们生活水平的迅速提高，汽车已逐渐进入寻常人家。车辆的增多致交通事故频发，交通肇事也成为较为普遍的犯罪现象，各种纷繁复杂的与交通有关的情况使交通肇事犯罪变得复杂起来，对交通肇事犯罪和相关法律规范的研究也引起了越来越多人的关注，交通肇事逃逸自然成为关注的焦点。本文试图从对交通肇事逃逸行为的定义、性质及其构成，交通肇事逃逸行为的认定及现行法律规范的分析出发，提出质疑和个人看法，姑且作为一种参与。

总之，理论上的澄清最为直接的目的是为了统一司法上的适用。只有严格贯彻罪行法定的原则和罪责刑相适应的原则，具体问题具体分析，才能真正有效地打击交通肇事逃逸的行为，才能真正保障无罪的人免受刑法的追究，以切实维护国家法律的权威。

【参考文献】

 喻贵英：《交通肇事罪中“四种逃逸行为”之认定》，载《法律科学》,2005年第1期，第:67页

 陈兴良：《刑法疏议》，中国人民公安大学出版社,1997年版，第249页

 刘淑莲：《交通肇事逃逸行为的性质》，《法学杂志》，2005年第2期，第31页

 肖中华：《论交通肇事罪的认定与处罚》，载赵秉志主编《刑事法实务疑难问题探索》，人民法院出版社，2002年版，第153页

 候国云：《过失犯罪论》，人民出版社，1993年版，第288页

 刘艳红：《交通肇事逃逸致人死亡的个案研究》，载陈兴良主编《刑事法判解》，法律出版社，2000年第2卷，第134页

Author: 2016-12-28

【Abstract】 In recent years, with the vigorous development of market economy and China's transportation industry, traffic accident cases are increasing year by year, and traffic accident escape cases are also on the rise, which has seriously endangered the lives and health of the people and property safety, and has become a social problem that cannot be ignored. Therefore, it is of great significance to study the issues related to escape after a traffic accident. Based on judicial cases, this paper defines the traffic accident escape from the subjective aspects, objective aspects and spatial elements, and then makes a specific and in-depth analysis and summary of the classification of traffic accident escape from the perspective of Chinese laws and current judicial interpretations. Finally, it puts forward countermeasures to improve the legislation of traffic accident escape in China, In order to better implement the principle of a legally prescribed crime and the principle of suiting crime, responsibility and punishment, more effectively crack down on hit and run behavior, and effectively safeguard the authority of national laws.

【Key words】 Traffic accident escape definition countermeasures

introduction

The crime of causing traffic accidents refers to the act of violating traffic and transportation management laws and regulations, resulting in serious accidents, causing serious injuries, deaths or heavy losses of public and private property. In recent years, with the vigorous development of market economy and China's transportation industry, traffic accident cases are increasing year by year, and traffic accident escape cases are also on the rise, which has seriously endangered the lives and health of the people and property safety, and has become a social problem that cannot be ignored. Therefore, it is of great significance to study the issues related to escape after a traffic accident.

The first criminal code passed in 1979 did not specifically stipulate the escape behavior in traffic accidents. However, in practice, many people fled after the traffic accident, which caused great difficulties to the investigation of the case. In particular, some people who caused serious injuries on the spot should be rescued and could not be rescued. They fled for fear of crime, so that the victim could not avoid death because of losing the rescue time. The consequences and circumstances are very serious, and must be severely punished. On August 12, 1987, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate jointly issued the Notice on Strictly Handling Road Traffic Accident Cases in accordance with the Law, which stipulated that "committing a traffic accident crime and fleeing for fear of crime" should be regarded as the circumstances of heavier punishment. In 1997, the Criminal Law specifically stipulated in Article 133 that "those who escape after a traffic accident or have other particularly bad circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; those who escape and cause death shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than seven years. Because the problem of hit and run involves many theoretical problems, it leads to different opinions when dealing with such cases in judicial practice. Therefore, on November 10, 2000, the Supreme People's Court issued the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation), which makes comprehensive and detailed provisions on issues related to criminal cases of traffic accidents, including the escape of traffic accidents. The Interpretation is undoubtedly of great significance for the unified guidance of judicial practice, but it does not end the further discussion of the escape behavior in traffic accidents in the criminal law theory, and some specific provisions of its own have caused huge disputes in the criminal law theoretical and practical circles. Therefore, this paper attempts to conduct a systematic and specialized study of the hit and run behavior and its related issues, and put forward its own views on the controversial issues, with a view to promoting the improvement of China's criminal law theory and criminal legislation.

1、 Definition of hit and run

The crime of causing traffic accidents is one of the negligent crimes of responsibility accident type stipulated in the criminal law of our country. Article 133 of the Criminal Law of China stipulates: "Whoever violates the traffic and transportation management laws and regulations, thereby causing serious injury, death or heavy losses of public or private property to a person, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention; whoever escapes after a traffic accident or has other especially vicious circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; whoever escapes and causes death to a person, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than seven years.", There are three sentencing ranges, namely for general traffic accidents, escape after traffic accidents and "death caused by escape".

At present, the understanding of the concept of hit and run in the criminal law academia is different, which undoubtedly brings difficulties to the identification of hit and run behavior. At present, from the perspective of laws, relevant judicial interpretations and academic discussions, there are generally three views: the first is according to the provisions of Article 2 of the Regulations of the Ministry of Public Security on the Investigation and Seizure of Traffic Accident Escape Cases on June 20, 1995: the case of escape after a traffic accident refers to the case where a party intentionally drives or abandons a vehicle to escape from the scene of a traffic accident after a road traffic accident. "Escape" refers to the act of escaping from the scene of the accident. The second is the provision in Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Traffic Accidents: "Escape after a traffic accident", which refers to the behavior of the perpetrator who has one of the circumstances specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 2 and Items (1) to (5) of Paragraph 2 of this Interpretation and escapes from legal investigation after a traffic accident. The third is pointed out in Chen Xingliang's Commentary on Criminal Law, "Escape refers to the act of escaping from legal investigation without reporting to the police and protecting the scene in accordance with the law after a traffic accident."

It should be said that these three statements look at the escape behavior after a traffic accident from different perspectives. All have certain rationality, but they fail to comprehensively summarize the meaning of escape behavior after traffic accident. The author believes that to judge whether an act belongs to "escape after traffic accident", it should be analyzed from the following aspects:

（1） Subjective aspects of escape after a traffic accident

The subjective motive of escaping after a traffic accident is that the actor runs away in order to avoid the rescue obligation and accountability, knowing that a traffic accident has occurred. This motive is a positive psychological activity. Although the traffic accident crime is a negligent crime, it has a direct intention of behavior only in terms of escape behavior. Therefore, only when the perpetrator is aware of the act of causing a traffic accident and has a direct criminal intention to escape, can he escape after a traffic accident. If the actor leaves the scene without realizing the occurrence of the traffic accident, it cannot be deemed as "escape after traffic accident". For example, when Sun was driving a two wheeled motorcycle to carry his friend Liu (both of whom drank too much) over the speed limit, Liu fell off the motorcycle and landed on his head due to bumps on the road, causing brain injury and death on the spot. At that time, Sun knew nothing about this and continued to drive wildly until he was found intercepted. In this case, although Sun left the scene, he was not "aware" of the traffic accident of Liu falling to the ground subjectively, so it is not appropriate to identify him as "escaping after a traffic accident", but only as a general traffic accident crime.

It should be emphasized that the "knowing" here means that the perpetrator "knows" or "should know". If the perpetrator "should know" that his behavior causes a traffic accident and pretends not to know, and escapes from the scene of the accident, it should still be considered as "escaping after a traffic accident". Of course, in practice, the motive of the perpetrator to escape also has other manifestations, such as fear of being beaten by the victim's relatives and friends and other onlookers to escape. If these perpetrators are willing to accept legal treatment by reporting to the leader or calling the police soon after fleeing the scene, this situation must be treated differently in judicial practice. From the perspective of subjective motivation, it is the fear of on-site consequences. On the contrary, if the perpetrator escapes for fear of being beaten, but fails to report the case, the author believes that escape should be punished. Because the law regards the escape behavior as a heavier punishment, considering that if the scene can be kept intact, it will help to clarify the responsibility. If the perpetrator escapes, it is obviously not conducive to the solution of the accident; Secondly, the perpetrator did not report the case after escaping, which shows that he has taken a laissez faire attitude towards the consequences of the accident. Its subjective malignancy and personal danger are obviously much greater than that of not escaping. Therefore, it is obviously a crime and responsibility not to recognize escape in this situation. Therefore, the author believes that this situation should be identified as escape.

Another situation is that the actor continues to drive and leaves the scene of the accident without knowing the situation of the traffic accident. In this case, the subjective aspect of the actor is the continuation of normal driving behavior, which cannot be considered as "escape". Therefore, in any case, when escaping, the actor must know that his behavior has caused a traffic accident, and have a direct intention to escape, which is the subjective aspect of the actor.

（2） The Objective Aspects of Escape after Traffic Accident

That is, the escape behavior after a traffic accident must comply with the legal provisions. From the perspective of criminal law theory, the most direct way to determine whether the perpetrator constitutes a crime is to identify the objective aspects of the act. The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court stipulates the behavior of escaping after a traffic accident on the basis of five situations. This can make it clear that escaping after a traffic accident is stipulated as a heavier circumstance for the sentencing of the traffic accident crime. That is to say, if the previous behavior of the perpetrator did not violate the traffic and transportation management regulations, or although there is a traffic violation, the violation has no causal relationship with the result, or the perpetrator only bears the same or secondary responsibility in the traffic accident, or the result of the traffic behavior has not reached the conviction standard for the basic crime of traffic accident, or only one person is seriously injured under the full or main responsibility of the accident, However, those who do not have one of the circumstances specified in the Interpretation, such as drunk driving, unlicensed driving, and unlicensed driving, can not be considered as escaping after a traffic accident even if the perpetrator has fled after the accident.

In addition, the traffic accident behavior of the actor must reach the level of "causing serious injury, death or heavy loss of public and private property" to apply this provision, which is the premise and basis for identifying the escape after a traffic accident. If the perpetrator escapes without causing the above serious consequences, it shall not be deemed that the perpetrator "escapes after a traffic accident", and can only be considered as a heavier case of public security punishment. For example, when an individual driver, Mr. Wu, was driving a taxi over the speed limit, he knocked down Mr. Wang, a pedestrian crossing the road, and made Mr. Wang unconscious. Mr. Wu thought that Mr. Wang had died and drove away. After medical appraisal, Wang was only slightly injured. In this case, although Mr. Wu escaped after a traffic accident, it should not be considered as "escape after a traffic accident".

（3） Spatial Elements of Escape Behavior after Traffic Accident

That is, is the escape behavior after a traffic accident limited to "escape from the scene of the accident"? In Article 2 of the Regulations of the Ministry of Public Security on the Investigation and Arrest of Traffic Accident Escape Cases, the expression "escape from the scene of traffic accident" is inappropriate. In judicial practice, there is such a situation that although the perpetrator did not escape from the scene after the traffic accident (some could not escape), he ran away after sending the injured to the hospital or waiting for the traffic police department to deal with him. How to identify this escape behavior? Obviously, both the subjective and objective aspects are consistent with the composition of the escape behavior after the traffic accident, which should be severely punished by the law. In practice, when the court is trying traffic accident cases, some judges often think that the crime of traffic accident is a negligent crime, and the subjective malignancy of the perpetrator is not deep. Therefore, it is not appropriate to deal with it too heavily, and the specific grasp scale should also be wide rather than strict. Therefore, the time and space of escape behavior should be defined as necessary, that is, when the accident occurred and the scene of the accident, and those who escape within this time and space, Can be identified as escape. However, the author believes that since the escapee has chosen to escape, it shows that the perpetrator is subjectively vicious and should be identified as escaping, which also implements the principle of suiting crime, responsibility and punishment to a certain extent. Therefore, the identification should be moderate, not too strict or too lenient, so the provision of Article 3 of the Interpretation is more reasonable. "Escape after a traffic accident" refers to the act of "escaping to avoid legal investigation" after the accident, not limited to "escaping from the scene of the accident". In addition, the subject of escape behavior after a traffic accident is as long as it conforms to the general subject.

Therefore, from the analysis of the above aspects, the author believes that the more appropriate expression of the escape behavior after the traffic accident should be: after the occurrence of the traffic accident that constitutes the crime of traffic accident, the actor escapes for the purpose of evading rescue obligations or responsibility investigation and other motives.

2、 Types of hit and run

According to the provisions of Article 133 of the revised Criminal Law on the crime of causing traffic accidents and the provisions of the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court, there are three cases of escape after a traffic accident. One is escape as a conviction; Second, escape as aggravating circumstances; The third is the escape that causes death. These three escapes play different roles in conviction and sentencing, and their internal meanings are also different. The following author will analyze these three escapes separately.

（1） Escape of conviction circumstances

Escape in the circumstances of conviction refers to the provision of Item (6), Paragraph 2, Article 2 of the Interpretation. If more than one person is seriously injured in a traffic accident, if the circumstances specified in Items (1) to (2) are not met, it would not constitute a crime, but if "fleeing from the scene of the accident to avoid legal investigation", it would constitute a crime. This is obviously taking the escape behavior after the traffic accident as the constitutive element of the traffic accident crime.

The author believes that Article 133 of the Criminal Law only stipulates escape after a traffic accident as the aggravating circumstances of the second level of the statutory punishment, and does not regard it as a constitutive element of a crime, Therefore, the Interpretation stipulates escape after traffic accident as a constitutive element of the crime of traffic accident, which exceeds the jurisdiction of judicial interpretation and belongs to ultra vires interpretation. In addition, according to the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime, there is no provision in the criminal law for a separate conviction and punishment for the act of escape after committing a crime or an illegal act. As far as the escape act after a traffic accident is concerned, if it is necessary to criminalize it, it can be said that it is necessary to criminalize any act of escape after committing any of the crimes specified in the criminal law, but the criminal law does not provide such a provision, Therefore, if the escape behavior is separated from the previous behavior that has constituted the traffic accident crime, it itself does not have the value of independent evaluation.

（2） Escape with aggravating circumstances

In order to facilitate the distinction between escape and death causing escape, we will call the escape with aggravating circumstances as simple escape behavior.

The so-called escape means to escape from the environment or things that are not conducive to oneself. As the second aggravating circumstance in Article 133 of the Criminal Law, the simple escape behavior needs to have both subjective and objective characteristics. According to Article 70 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, in case of a traffic accident on the road, the driver of the vehicle shall stop immediately to protect the scene. If personal injury or death is caused, the driver of the vehicle shall rescue the injured immediately and report to the traffic police on duty or the traffic management department of the public security organ quickly. If the scene is changed due to the rescue of the injured, the location shall be indicated. According to this, we can see that the party involved in the traffic accident has the obligation to stop immediately, protect the scene, rescue the injured, etc. The behavior that the perpetrator escapes from the scene of the accident in order to avoid legal investigation is essentially an omission that should be performed and has the ability to perform but does not perform legal obligations.

According to the second file of Article 133 of the Criminal Law, the elements of simple escape behavior mainly include the following:

(l) The simple escape behavior with aggravating circumstances must be based on the establishment of traffic accident crime

The simple aggravating circumstances crime is composed of the basic crime combined with the simple aggravating circumstances, and the specific provisions clearly stipulate a heavier statutory punishment. The so-called basic crime refers to the act performed by the perpetrator has met the requirements of the general circumstances of a crime specified in the specific provisions of the Criminal Law, while the simple serious circumstances, although beyond the constitutive scope of the basic crime, do not belong to the constitutive elements of the basic crime, but this transcendence cannot change or reduce the constitutive elements of the basic crime. The simple serious circumstances in the aggravated circumstances crime are relative to the basic crime, and they only play a role in sentencing, and the process of sentencing must be based on the premise that the basic crime facts are fully possessed. Only when the basic crime has been constituted, can it be possible to explore the constitution of simple aggravated crime. The basic crime and the simple aggravating circumstances are two inseparable organic components of the simple aggravating circumstances crime, and neither of them is dispensable. The basic crime is the premise or basis of the simple aggravating circumstances, and the simple aggravating circumstances are nothing but the adhesive on them, which cannot exist independently from the basic crime.

(2) Objective performance of simple escape behavior

The objective aspect of escape behavior is to escape, to avoid, and in judicial practice it is often manifested as fleeing from the scene of the accident. For example, on October 2, 1985, when Zhang was driving through a county town, he dared not turn on the lights or honk his horn on the dark road because he was driving without a license, so he killed a pedestrian when speeding. After the crime, Zhang continued to escape and was later captured. In this case, a major traffic accident that caused one person's death due to Zhang's violation of road traffic management regulations due to driving without a license meets the constitutive requirements of the traffic accident crime, that is, the traffic accident crime is established. After the accident, Zhang did not perform his obligations of stopping immediately, reporting to the police and rescuing the injured. Instead, he drove away, which was a typical simple escape behavior after a traffic accident. However, under certain circumstances, the behavior of the perpetrator at the crime scene can also be regarded as escape. If A steals a car to play, and bumps B into a serious injury on the way. Seeing that there is no one on the road, A hides in the trees beside the road after contacting the nearby hospital, and escapes after the rescue personnel come to take the victim to the hospital. At this time, A's behavior still constitutes escape. Because although Party A did not escape from the scene of the accident after the accident, the act of hiding without performing the obligation of rescuing and reporting to the police to avoid legal investigation fully meets the objective requirements of escape. In addition, some perpetrators send the victim to the hospital and leave after leaving the contact method. If they leave a false contact method, it is equivalent to the situation of evading legal investigation even though they have fulfilled their rescue obligations. It also belongs to escape after the accident. The author believes that although the latter two acts belong to the simple escape situation stipulated by law, they are different from the typical simple escape behavior in the first example. In the first example, the behavior of the actor who fled directly from the scene of the accident without taking any measures shows the actor's bad subjective malignancy; In the latter two cases, although the perpetrator personally fulfilled the obligation of assistance, the behavior of actively contacting the hospital to help the victim showed that the perpetrator was only to avoid legal investigation and still had compassion for the victim. Therefore, although the above three cases are in line with the second level of statutory punishment, the specific sentencing should be different.

(3) The Subjective Motivation of Simple Escape Behavior

As mentioned earlier, escaping after a traffic accident is not just an objective act of simply escaping from the scene, it is a harmful act under the subjective psychological control of the actor. From the subjective psychological perspective of the actor, he has the motivation to escape rescue obligations or responsibility after the accident, which leads to the intentional escape. If there is no such specific motivation, the behavior of the actor leaving the scene will not have the nature of hit and run behavior. For example, a hit and run case handled by the author: at about 9:55 p.m. on October 25, 2006, when Zhang was drunk and driving a small ordinary truck from his work unit, he ran from west to east on the Provincial Highway 75 in Jiaojiang District, Taizhou City to the bridgehead section of Xucun Village, Qiansuo Street, Jiaojiang District, and collided with a rickshaw driven by Wang (male) from west to east on this section. The passenger in the rear compartment of the tricycle was Wang (female), It caused a traffic accident in which Wang Moumou (male) was injured and Wang Moumou (female) was seriously injured and died on the way to hospital. After the accident, Zhang did not stop to check, but drove directly away from the scene. In the early morning of the next day, the public security organ captured Zhang through investigation. It was confirmed that Zhang was fully responsible for the accident. The court of first instance held that the defendant Zhang ignored the road traffic management laws and regulations, caused one person to die by drunk driving, and drove away from the scene after the accident. Zhang's behavior had a direct causal relationship with the death consequences of the victim Wang (female). His behavior had constituted a traffic accident crime, and had aggravated circumstances of traffic accident escape, so he was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment. The defendant Zhang Mou refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and entrusted the author to act as the defender of the second instance. He appealed on the grounds that the facts in the original judgment were unclear and the evidence of escape after the accident was judged insufficient, and requested the court of second instance to change the judgment according to law. After hearing, the court of second instance held that the fact that Mr. Zhang was found guilty of traffic accident in the original judgment was unclear, so it ruled to revoke the judgment of first instance and remand him for retrial. In the process of defense, the author focused on whether Zhang had the subjective intention to evade legal investigation, combined with the road conditions, weather, driving route and location of the vehicle at the time of the crime, the part hit by the vehicle, the insurance situation of the vehicle, whether there was any abnormal performance after returning home, whether the human tricycle driven by the victim had reflective devices and whether the clothes they wore had reflective materials, etc, A total of 11 reasons were cited to explain that the party did not find that he ran into the victim and his vehicle at that time, and did not have the subjective intention to hit and run from the traffic accident. The perpetrator, Zhang Mou, also stated that when the case was committed, he only thought that the car hit a stone on the roadside, so he did not care about it in his heart, but directly drove away from the scene. The public prosecution organ could not provide that the perpetrator, Zhang Mou, knew that he ran into the victim, Or knowing that the relevant evidence of a traffic accident that is enough to constitute a traffic accident crime has occurred, the public prosecution organ accused the perpetrator Zhang of insufficient evidence of escape after constituting a traffic accident. The court of first instance reopened the trial of the case, and fully adopted the author's defense view that there was insufficient evidence for Zhang to escape after the traffic accident, sentenced Zhang to commit the crime of traffic accident, sentenced him to two years of fixed-term imprisonment, and suspended his sentence for two years and six months.

（3） Death causing escape

The death caused by escaping is a sentencing circumstance added in the new criminal law, which is heavier than the original traffic accident crime. There is no unified view on how to understand the aggravating circumstances in criminal law theory and judicial practice. The author believes that the death caused by escape refers to the situation where the actor negligently fails to perform the obligation of assistance after causing serious injury in a traffic accident, resulting in the death of the injured due to lack of treatment. The key point is that the actor does not perform the obligation of relief, which can effectively eliminate the ambiguity of understanding. The constituent elements of death causing escape are as follows:

(l) Subjective Elements of Death Escape

Article 133 of the Criminal Law stipulates that the death of a person due to escape shall be sentenced to more than seven years of fixed-term imprisonment. The legislators ignore the complex situation of escape as a general provision of aggravating circumstances for sentencing, giving people the impression that the legislation is too rough, so it is necessary to explore in depth in theory.

The criminal law only stipulates the words "death caused by escape". What is the scope of "person" here? Is it the original injured person, or other people killed by the perpetrator in the process of escape, or both? Different understandings of the scope of "people" will directly lead to different understandings of the subjective sin of "death caused by escape". Therefore, the author will combine the understanding of the scope of "people" to explore the subjective sin of "death caused by escape". There are mainly three different views on the scope of "people" in theory: first, the "people" here are only limited to the victims of previous accidents. Secondly, the "person" here only refers to other people who died during the escape of the perpetrator. Thirdly, the "person" here can refer to both the injured person in the first accident and the victim in the escape process. The author believes that in practice, there will indeed be a series of hit and run cases, but whether the clause "death due to escape" is applicable? The author believes that although the victim died in the process of the actor's escape, the fundamental cause of death does not lie in the escape behavior, that is, the escape behavior has no causal effect on the victim's death in the second accident. The root cause of his death is the behavior of causing trouble again. In this case, the perpetrator has caused another traffic accident and caused death, which is completely a new traffic accident crime or intentional (negligent) homicide that is independent of the previous traffic accident behavior, rather than the aggravating circumstances of the traffic accident crime referred to in Article 133 of the Criminal Law as "death due to escape". Based on the above analysis, the author believes that the scope of "person" in "death due to escape" should be limited to the original injured person, and its subjective sin should be limited to negligence.

(2) Objective Elements of Death Escape

First, there must be escape behavior objectively. Secondly, there must be a causal relationship between the escape behavior and the death result. That is, there is a criminal causality between the death of the victim and the escape of the perpetrator. If the death result of the victim has been caused by the previous traffic accident behavior of the actor, and the actor escapes after the accident, the actor can only apply the second sentencing level of the traffic accident crime. Similarly, if there is sufficient evidence to prove that the actor who escapes after the accident hit the victim, even if immediate assistance can not save the victim's life, the case of "death caused by escape" cannot be applied, Because the death of the victim is still a direct result of the previous traffic accident, the obligation of no assistance has no causal effect on the death.

3、 Reflections on the Legislative Countermeasures to Improve the Escape from Traffic Accidents in China

（1） Separate crime of "no rescue after traffic accident"

It is suggested that China should establish the crime of "no rescue after traffic accident" when legislating on escape behavior, delete the third sentencing circumstance in Article 133 of the current Criminal Law, and repeal the 2000 Interpretation of the Supreme Court. The crime of "no rescue after traffic accident" consists of the following:

1. The direct object of infringement is the complex object, that is, the right to life and health and the right to body of others.

2. The subjective aspect of this crime is indirect intention, that is, escaping after the accident and allowing the victim to die or be seriously injured.

If the perpetrator takes an active action, such as backing up to stab the person, deliberately dragging, transferring or hiding the victim, it constitutes direct intent, and does not fall within the scope of the adjustment of this crime.

3. The objective aspect of this crime is that the participants in the traffic accident fled from the scene or refused to rescue the injured after the traffic accident, causing serious injury or death to others.

4. The subject of this crime is a general subject, which includes not only the personnel engaged in transportation, but also the personnel who are not engaged in transportation, as well as the person in charge of the unit, the vehicle owner, the contractor or the passenger.

Traffic accident behavior is the antecedent behavior that leads to the actor's rescue obligation. So, should the actor's fault in the traffic accident be regarded as the constitutive element of the crime of "no rescue after traffic accident"? In other words, if the perpetrator has fault in the traffic accident, but fails to constitute a traffic accident crime, can the perpetrator constitute a "crime of not providing assistance after a traffic accident"? Further, if the actor is not at fault for the accident, can he become the subject of the crime of not providing assistance after a traffic accident? In Taiwan, where the crime of "hit and run" has been established, the above issues have always been controversial. Clarifying the above two problems is really necessary for the future crime of "no rescue after traffic accident" in China. The author believes that the crime of "no rescue after traffic accident" is a crime independent of the crime of traffic accident. Whether the perpetrator's behavior can constitute a crime of traffic accident, whether the perpetrator has fault in the accident, etc., has nothing to do with the establishment of the crime of "no rescue after traffic accident".

First, from the legislative purpose, the legislative purpose of the crime of "no rescue after traffic accident" has two: one is to protect the victim's right to life and health, and the other is to prevent the fugitive from evading legal responsibility. On the premise of protecting the victims' right to life and health, it is reasonable to believe that the innocent or non major fault perpetrators also have the obligation to rescue the victims. As a participant in a traffic accident, once the accident results in the death or injury of others, the cause of death or injury has something to do with the perpetrator, Article 70 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that: "In case of a traffic accident on the road, the driver of the vehicle shall stop the vehicle immediately to protect the scene; if personal injury or death is caused, the driver of the vehicle shall rescue the injured immediately and report to the traffic police on duty or the traffic management department of the public security organ quickly. If the scene is changed due to the rescue of the injured, the location shall be indicated. Passengers, passing vehicle drivers and pedestrians shall provide assistance." Therefore, No matter in law or morality, the actor has the duty of salvation; If the perpetrator escapes without assistance, he should be punished, which is the significance of establishing this crime.

Secondly, traffic accident cases have particularity, that is, the urgency of victims' urgent need for assistance conflicts with the slowness of accident liability determination. It is impossible for the party who caused the accident to immediately judge whether his party is at fault and bears multiple responsibilities on the spot, and even if he can make it, his accuracy cannot be proved. In this case, in the face of the victims who are seriously injured and dying, the actor's relief obligation cannot be shirked. If it is believed that only those who can constitute the crime of causing traffic accidents or those who are at fault in causing traffic accidents have the obligation to rescue, then there is a judgment procedure and a corresponding waiting time, but there can be no such waiting time at the scene of the accident where the victim's life is in danger. In this case, the perpetrator whose fault liability is not clear refuses to rescue the victim, resulting in the death of the victim, but because the perpetrator has no fault for the accident or the traffic accident crime cannot be established, the perpetrator does not need to be condemned, which is unacceptable in reason. We can imagine that it would be a mockery of the rule of law if the confident and faultless perpetrators could turn a blind eye to the seriously injured victims of car accidents and leave the scene of the accident at will.

It can be seen that the actor's fault in the traffic accident is not the constitutive element of the crime of no rescue after the traffic accident. Even if the perpetrator has no fault for the accident or has fault but is not enough to become a traffic accident crime, as long as it meets the four constituent elements of the "crime of no rescue after traffic accident" mentioned above, it can still become the subject of the crime.

（2） Connecting the New Crime with Article 133 of the Current Criminal Law

After the establishment of the "crime of no rescue after traffic accident", how to link the establishment of the new crime with the provisions of Article 133 of the current Criminal Law? For this problem, scholars have not covered much in their works. The author believes that because the death or injury caused by escaping from a traffic accident is an indirect intentional crime, what kind of crime should be imposed on the relevant acts should be investigated from the results of escaping. The result of escape behavior may appear in four situations: first, escape that does not constitute a traffic accident crime and does not result in death or serious injury; The second is the escape that constitutes a traffic accident without death or serious injury; The third is escape without causing death or serious injury due to traffic accident; The fourth is the escape that constitutes the crime of causing traffic accident and results in death or serious injury. Because the first two situations are not combined with the result of causing death or serious injury, even though the actor has some "indirect intention" consciousness and will factors, this indirect intention is not combined with the harmful result, which does not meet the constitutive conditions of indirect intentional crime, and therefore does not have independent value of constituting criminal acts. Escape in the last two situations includes both escape behavior after traffic accident and escape, Relevant results exist, so it should be included in the adjustment category of new crimes.

Based on the investigation of the escape result, the author believes that the third sentencing circumstance should be deleted and the second sentencing circumstance should be retained for Article 133 of the current Criminal Law. The second circumstance mentioned above can be adjusted by the second sentencing circumstance; The third and fourth cases can be classified as new crime adjustment. For circumstance 1, since it neither constitutes a traffic accident crime nor meets the constitutive requirements of the new crime, it can be treated as a general illegal act.

Conclusion:

With the rapid development of society and the rapid improvement of people's living standards, cars have gradually entered ordinary families. The increase of vehicles leads to frequent traffic accidents, and traffic accidents have also become a more common crime phenomenon. Various complicated traffic related situations make traffic accident crimes more complicated. The research on traffic accident crimes and related legal norms has also attracted more and more people's attention, and traffic accident escape naturally becomes the focus of attention. This paper attempts to put forward questions and personal opinions from the definition, nature and composition of the hit and run behavior, the identification of the hit and run behavior and the analysis of the existing legal norms, for example, as a participation.

In short, the most direct purpose of theoretical clarification is to unify the judicial application. Only by strictly implementing the principle of a legally prescribed crime and the principle of matching criminal responsibility and punishment, and analyzing specific problems, can we truly and effectively crack down on the behavior of escaping from traffic accidents, truly protect innocent people from being investigated by criminal law, and effectively safeguard the authority of national laws.

[References]

Yu Guiying: Determination of "Four Escape Behaviors" in Traffic Accident Crime, published in Legal Science, 2005, Issue 1, Page: 67

Chen Xingliang: Brief Comments on Criminal Law, China People's Public Security University Press, 1997 edition, page 249

Liu Shulian: The Nature of Traffic Accident Escape, Law Journal, 2005, Issue 2, Page 31

Xiao Zhonghua: On the Determination and Punishment of Traffic Accident Crime, in Zhao Bingzhi's Exploration of Difficult Problems in Criminal Law Practice, People's Court Press, 2002 edition, page 153

Hou Guoyun: On Negligent Crime, People's Publishing House, 1993 edition, page 288

Liu Yanhong: Case Study on Death Caused by Escaping from Traffic Accident, published in Chen Xingliang's Interpretation of Criminal Law, Law Press, 2000, Vol. 2, page 134