案情

李某酒后驾驶机动车在公路上行驶，发生车祸，致本人重伤，未造成他人伤亡及财产损失，经交警认定，李某负事故全部责任。公诉机关以李某构成交通肇事罪诉至法院，法院经审理认为李某不构成交通肇事罪。

分歧

对李某是否构成交通肇事罪有两种观点：一种观点认为李某构成交通肇事罪，因为《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》第二条第二款规定：“交通肇事致一人以上重伤，负事故全部或者主要责任，并具有下列情形之一的，以交通肇事罪定罪处罚：（一）酒后、吸食毒品后驾驶机动车辆的；……”本案事实符合前述司法解释的规定，李某酒后驾驶的行为危害了不特定或者多数人的生命、身体或财产安全，致本人重伤正是这种危害的实际表现，故构成交通肇事罪。第二种观点认为李某不构成交通肇事罪，因为犯罪是对他人法益的侵害，自损行为不构成犯罪；基于法律解释，该司法解释中“致一人以上重伤”中的“人”不应当包含本人；而且，对过失致本人重伤的行为定罪有违社会一般人的认识。

评析

笔者同意第二种观点，理由如下：

1、犯罪是对他人法益的侵害，单纯的自损行为不构成犯罪。自损行为是指行为人自己侵害自己法益的行为，这种行为原则上没有违法性，因为人有权在不侵害他人权益的前提下处分自己的权益，法益主体自己侵害自己的法益时，就没有必要认为该法益是应受保护的。现实中有侵害自己法益也构成犯罪的情形，如以人体炸弹实施爆炸、军人战时自伤、在自己家里做爆炸实验等，但这种情况并非是基于侵害自己的法益定罪，而是基于行为人是以侵犯自己法益为手段来侵害他人法益或者侵害自己法益的同时也侵害了他人的法益。我国刑法及司法解释规定中以人的伤亡作为定罪量刑条件的，无一包含对本人造成的伤亡，如刑法第二百三十二条“故意杀人的，处死刑……”如果认为此处的“人”包含本人，那么自杀行为就构成犯罪，但我国刑法并未将自杀规定为犯罪；又如刑法第二百三十三条“过失致人死亡的”，此处的人显然也不包括本人，因为该罪为结果犯，如果过失致本人死亡根本无法定罪；再如故意伤害罪、过失致人重伤罪，更是直接明确规定为“故意伤害他人身体”、“过失伤害他人致人重伤”。有观点认为交通肇事罪危害的是不特定或者多数人的生命、人身或财产安全，本案中李某致本人重伤正说明其行为可能危害不特定人的相关权益，只是这个不特定人成了本人。实际上这种观点使用了双重标准，一方面认为交通肇事罪侵害的法益应当是公共安全，但又清楚交通肇事罪是结果犯而非行为犯，仅仅是可能的危险尚不足以定罪，需要以一定的危害结果来证明危害了公共安全，故另一方面又不得不将本人受伤害这种自损结果作为侵害公共安全的犯罪结果，才能使交通肇事罪的认定具有完整的犯罪构成，便产生了逻辑上的混乱。

2、从法律解释的角度分析，司法解释中“致一人以上重伤”中的“人”不应当包括本人。限缩解释，是指缩小法律条文之文义，使之局限于核心意图，以正确阐释法律条文真实合理含义的解释方法。《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》第二条第一款第（一）项中所规定的交通肇事罪的定罪条件之一为“死亡一人”以上并负主要责任，按照该条文文字本身的文义，“人”包括本人和他人，但很显然此处应进行限缩解释，此处的人不能包含本人，因为如果本人已死亡，再规定其行为构成犯罪既无法律上的必要，也没有实际意义。法律是依一定的逻辑关系构成的完整体系，各个法律条文所在位置及与前后相关法律条文之间，均有某种逻辑关系存在，依此法律条文之间的关联，探明相关法条之法意，阐明其规范意旨，这种解释方法即为体系解释。从刑法的体系解释来看，同一法条或关联法条中相同文字的内涵与外延应当是一致的。前述条款中同时规定“死亡一人或者重伤三人以上”，此处“死亡一人”与“重伤三人”并列，对两处的“人”就应当做相同解释，“死亡一人”和“重伤三人”都不包含本人。同理，该法条第二款中的酒后驾驶“致一人以上重伤”中的“人”也不应当包含本人。

3、对过失致本人重伤的行为定罪有违社会一般人的认识。犯罪的本质特征是达到应受刑罚处罚程度的社会危害性，即社会危害性达到一定严重程度的行为才构成犯罪，酒后驾车致本人重伤的人，由于其对他人并未造成实际的损失，而本人又在事件中受到了惨痛的教训，往往成为人们的同情对象，将其定罪，有违常情常理。且过失致人重伤罪需致他人重伤才构成犯罪，若交通肇事罪作为过失犯罪致本人重伤就构成犯罪，将产生罪与罚的不平衡，有失公平。

（作者单位：重庆市第五中级人民法院 重庆市长寿区人民法院）

Case details

Li drove a motor vehicle on the highway after drinking, causing serious injury to himself, without causing any casualties or property damage. After being determined by the traffic police, Li is fully responsible for the accident. The public prosecution filed a lawsuit against Li for the crime of causing a traffic accident, and after trial, the court found that Li did not constitute the crime of causing a traffic accident.

Disagreements

There are two views on whether Li constitutes a traffic accident crime: one view holds that Li constitutes a traffic accident crime, Because Article 2 (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 stipulates that "if a traffic accident causes serious injury to more than one person, bears all or the main responsibility for the accident, and has one of the following circumstances, the crime of traffic accident shall be convicted and punished: (1) driving a motor vehicle after drinking or taking drugs;..." The facts of this case comply with the provisions of the aforementioned judicial interpretation, Li's behavior of driving under the influence of alcohol endangers the life, body, or property safety of unspecified or most people, and causing serious injury to himself is the actual manifestation of this harm, thus constituting a traffic accident crime. The second viewpoint holds that Li does not constitute a traffic accident crime because the crime is an infringement of the legal interests of others, and self harm behavior does not constitute a crime; Based on legal interpretation, the term 'person' in the judicial interpretation 'causing serious injury to more than one person' should not include the individual; Moreover, criminalizing the act of causing serious injury to oneself through negligence goes against the understanding of ordinary people in society.

Evaluation and Analysis

The author agrees with the second viewpoint for the following reasons:

1. Crime is an infringement of the legal interests of others, and a simple act of self harm does not constitute a crime. Self destructive behavior refers to the behavior of the perpetrator who infringes on their own legal interests. In principle, this behavior is not illegal, because a person has the right to dispose of their own rights and interests without infringing on the rights and interests of others. When the legal interest subject infringes on their own legal interests, there is no need to believe that the legal interest should be protected. In reality, there are situations where infringement of one's own legal interests also constitutes a crime, such as using a human body bomb to detonate, soldiers self injuring themselves during wartime, or conducting explosion experiments at one's own home. However, this situation is not based on the conviction of infringement of one's own legal interests, but rather on the perpetrator using infringement of one's own legal interests as a means to infringe upon the legal interests of others or infringing upon one's own legal interests at the same time. In the criminal law and judicial interpretation provisions of our country, the condition for conviction and sentencing is based on personal injury or death, which does not include the injury or death caused to oneself. For example, Article 232 of the Criminal Law states that "intentional homicide shall be punished with death..." If the term "person" here is deemed to include oneself, then suicide constitutes a crime, but the Criminal Law of our country does not define suicide as a crime; For example, Article 233 of the Criminal Law states that "negligence causes death to a person", and the person mentioned here clearly does not include the individual, as the crime is a consequential offense, and if the negligence causes death to the individual, it cannot be convicted at all; For example, the crime of intentional injury and the crime of causing serious injury to others through negligence are directly and clearly defined as "intentionally harming the body of others" and "causing serious injury to others through negligence". There is a viewpoint that the crime of traffic accidents endangers the lives, personal or property safety of unspecified or majority individuals. In this case, Li's serious injury to me indicates that his behavior may endanger the relevant rights and interests of unspecified individuals, but this unspecified person has become me. In fact, this view uses double standards. On the one hand, it believes that the legal interest infringed by traffic accident crime should be public safety, but on the other hand, it is clear that traffic accident crime is a result offense rather than a behavior offense, and only the possible danger is not enough to convict. It is necessary to prove the harm to public safety with certain harmful results. Therefore, on the other hand, it is necessary to consider the self harm result of personal injury as the criminal result of violating public safety, Only then can the determination of traffic accident crime have a complete criminal constitution, which leads to logical confusion.

2. From the perspective of legal interpretation, the term "person" in judicial interpretation that "causes serious injury to more than one person" should not include the individual. Restrictive interpretation refers to the method of interpreting legal provisions by narrowing their meaning to the core intention, in order to accurately interpret the true and reasonable meaning of legal provisions. One of the conditions for the conviction of the traffic accident crime stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 1 (1) 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 is that "one person has died" or more and bears the main responsibility. According to the original meaning of the article, "person" includes oneself and others, but it is obvious that a limited interpretation should be made here, and the person here cannot include oneself, Because it is neither legally necessary nor practically meaningful to stipulate that one's behavior constitutes a crime if they have already died. Law is a complete system composed of certain logical relationships. There is a certain logical relationship between the positions of each legal provision and the relevant legal provisions before and after it. Based on the correlation between these legal provisions, the legal meaning of the relevant legal provisions is explored, and their normative intent is clarified. This interpretation method is called systematic interpretation. From the perspective of the interpretation of the criminal law system, the connotation and extension of the same text in the same or related legal provisions should be consistent. The previous clause also stipulates that "one person died or three or more people were seriously injured". Here, "one person died" and "three people were seriously injured" are juxtaposed, and the "person" in both places should be interpreted the same. "one person died" and "three people were seriously injured" do not include the person themselves. Similarly, the term "person" in the second paragraph of this law, which refers to drunk driving causing serious injury to more than one person, should not include the individual.

3. Criminalizing the act of causing serious injury to oneself due to negligence goes against the understanding of ordinary people in society. The essential characteristic of crime is the social harmfulness that reaches the level of punishment that should be imposed. Only when the social harmfulness reaches a certain level of severity can it constitute a crime. A person who causes serious injuries to oneself while driving under the influence of alcohol, as they have not caused actual losses to others and have received painful lessons in the event, often becomes a sympathetic object of people, and convicting them is contrary to common sense. Moreover, the crime of causing serious injury to others through negligence constitutes a crime. If the crime of causing serious injury to oneself as a negligent crime constitutes a crime, it will result in an imbalance between crime and punishment, which is unfair.

(Author's unit: Chongqing Fifth Intermediate People's Court Chongqing Changshou District People's Court)