时间：2023-05-31 12:25:18来源：法律常识
这算是肇事逃逸么
交通肇事后逃逸是指交通肇事导致严重后果后不尽法律义务，反而自行离开现场，逃避法律责任的行为。我国刑法对此行为做出了特别的规定，成为交通肇事罪的加重情节。交通肇事后逃逸行为的行为性质和构成、因逃逸致人死亡的问题是交通肇事罪中的主要问题。肇事后逃逸的构成要具备主观上的故意心理状态，客观上的逃跑行为，并要具备逃逸的时空要素。交通肇事后逃逸的行为实际是积极的，具有主观的恶意，应属于作为而非不作为。交通肇事后因逃逸致人死亡是交通肇事罪的情节加重犯，而不是结果加重犯，更不是独立的罪名。因此，因逃逸致人死亡的认定必须以交通肇事罪的成立为前提，必须是逃逸行为而不是故意杀人行为，而且在逃逸行为和被害人死亡间必须有因果关系。
关键词：交通肇事；交通肇事后逃逸；致人死亡；不作为
交通肇事，是我国刑法规定的责任事故型过失犯罪之一。我国《刑法》第条规定：“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。”在《刑法》这一规定中，呈梯度型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”。对于一般的交通肇事行为，无论从定性还是量刑来看，都是相对明确和易于操作的。而交通肇事后逃逸和“因逃逸致人死亡”，仍是争议颇多，难于处理的问题。下文中笔者对交通肇事后逃逸行为的定义及其构成、性质及其责任认定和“因逃逸致人死亡”等相关问题进行了分析与探讨。
一、交通肇事逃逸行为的定义及其构成
交通肇事后逃逸行为的定义一直尚未统一，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，存在三种观点：第一种是根据年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》（下文称“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。”①
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。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：主观方面即行为人的主观动机，交通肇事后逃逸的动机一般是逃避抢救义务以及逃避责任追究。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。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。这些人往往在逃离现场后，很快通过报告领导或报警等方式，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，因为从主观方面来看，在犯罪恶意上是很小的，是对现场后果的害怕所致。但毫无疑问，其逃逸行为还是直接故意所致。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：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，是最高院的《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加重情节来规定的。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。
（三）交通肇事后逃逸行为的空间要素，即该行为是否仅限于“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。在学界部分学者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。但是笔者认为逃逸者既然选择逃逸即具有主观上的恶性，是一种犯罪行为，就必须按照罪刑罚一致的原则，对于把握尺度上必须严格。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准确的表述应当是：发生交通事故后，行为人出于逃避抢救义务或逃避责任追究等动机而故意逃逸的行为。
二、交通肇事逃逸行为的性质及其责任认定
（一）交通肇事逃逸行为的性质
对交通肇事后逃逸行为性质的认定是把握该行为的关键所在，对交通肇事后逃逸的行为人主观恶意分析及责任认定有积极意义。通常交通肇事后逃逸行为的性质被认为是不作为。认为行为人具有保护现场、救助伤员的义务，却不履行义务，选择逃逸，以致造成严重后果。笔者认为，从对交通肇事后逃逸行为的责任追究和对被害人人身、财产保护的角度来看，交通肇事后逃逸者的行为实际是积极的，具有主观的恶意，应属于作为而非不作为。这是笔者对交通肇事后逃逸行为性质的根本倾向。
《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员应当立即抢救受伤人员，并迅速报告值勤的交通警察或者公安机关交通管理部门。”把交通肇事后逃逸行为理解为不作为，实际上是把逃逸行为与不履行本条规定的作为义务特别是救助义务等同起来。但在实践中，行为人不仅仅违反了上述的种种义务，更关键地是对行为有主观恶意，是积极而为之。实质上是行为人采取了作为的手段，同时违反了一定的义务。所以尽管“逃逸”行为在很多情况下与不救助行为相重合，但实际上即使履行了救助义务仍然可能构成逃逸，比如在将伤员送往医院后的逃逸等。
分析交通肇事后逃逸行为的性质，不应从履行义务的角度着手，而应从是否有逃逸的实际行为来分析。这也是有法律依据的，根据《刑法》第条及最高人民法院《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》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。虽然三者在定罪量刑中的作用不同，内在含义也有差别，但逃逸行为的方式是共同的，都是积极采取措施去逃跑，无论动机如何，行为的性质均是作为。
（二）交通肇事逃逸行为的责任认定
正如上文所述，交通肇事后逃逸行为是一种具有主观故意的作为行为，对其认定则不能象交通肇事行为那样，视为过失犯罪，而应从严把握。“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。”《刑法》的这一规定是责任认定的根本依据，但具体认定时还要结合具体的情形，笔者从行为人主观动机出发分三种情形说明：
1、出于逃避法律责任，但履行救助义务。如行为人交通肇事将人撞倒后，立即拨打急救电话后逃离现场。医护人员及时将伤者送往医院。这种情形下，行为人虽构成逃逸，但主观恶性不深。仅出于逃避法律责任，现实中为抢救伤者，争取了宝贵时间。对于这种情形，认定责任时应该从宽。
2、出于逃避救治伤者，逃逸后主动投案。有人认为这种情形中，行为人不构成交通肇事后逃逸，理由在于行为人的主动投案。但笔者认为，这种观点实际上违背了立法原意。法律之所以规定逃逸是加重情节，就是考虑对受害人生命的保护。逃逸造成的最严重后果就是，使伤者缺乏救助，导致伤势严重以致死亡。所以这种情形构成交通肇事后逃逸是当然的。但排除逃逸后自首的成立，对自首情节按照刑法减轻处罚也是应当的。
3、既逃避法律责任又逃避救治伤者。这种情形在现实中最为常见，行为人在主观上大多是两者的竞合。对于这种情况，显然要按照法律的规定，在量刑幅度内予以从重。如果其结果导致受害人的死亡，则是逃逸行为情节的再次加重，构成“因逃逸致人死亡”。对这样的情况，笔者在下文展开了更详细的论述。
三、交通肇事逃逸行为的情节加重——“因逃逸致人死亡”的分析
在司法实践中，由于交通肇事本身的特点，因交通肇事致人重伤与死亡的事件屡见不鲜，而“因逃逸致人死亡”的案例也尤为常见，其危害性、社会影响更为严重。因此，除了对交通肇事后逃逸行为的认定，以及逃逸行为的性质上进行探讨之外，更有实际价值和意义的便是对“因逃逸致人死亡”问题的探讨。《刑法》第条规定，“犯交通肇事罪的，处三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役；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。”显然仅此规定实在过于笼统含糊，运用时也更为棘手，这就成了许多交通肇事案件如何解决的关键。笔者在此就对“因逃逸致人死亡”做出分析。
（一）“因逃逸致人死亡”的罪名性质分析
认识一个问题，首先立足于行为的本质或者性质。由于对主观方面的认识不一，对“逃逸致人死亡”的法律性质认识更是众说纷纭，笔者在此就几个主流观点加以分析：
1、结果加重犯说
此说是目前学术界最流行的观点。其主要理由是：从刑法中规定“致人死亡”的条文来看，符合结果加重的两个条件：其一，基本行为和加重结果的因果关系。即认为“因逃逸致人死亡”是交通肇事逃逸这一基本行为的加重结果；其二，对加重结果之发生具有预见可能性。交通肇事后逃逸不同于一般的逃逸行为，交通事故致人死亡的可能性与发生率之高，是无庸置疑的。因此对加重结果具有预见的可能性是当然的。此说最直接的反映了立法者的意图。
但此论也有理论上的不足，比如必须论证加重结果犯存在“过失的基本犯+故意的加重结果”的形式。为满足加重结果是对基本行为的依附性要求，从而使“逃逸致人死亡”成为交通肇事罪的加重结果犯，不得不指出逃逸行为仅是交通肇事后的自然延伸行为。但事实上，逃逸行为是相对独立的，并在逃逸行为中已经介入了新的原因行为。从《刑法》第条规定的量刑阶梯来看，“逃逸致人死亡”的处7年以上有期徒刑，显然是“交通肇事罪+肇事后逃逸情节”的加重结果，而不是交通肇事罪本身的加重结果，这种情况更支持情节加重说而不是结果加重说。
2、情节加重犯说
如上文所说，情节加重说也可以从刑法规定的量刑梯度中寻求依据。认为“逃逸致人死亡”是一种情节上的加重表现，属于为逃避法律责任而逃跑的罪后表现。其行为与罪过均与前两个罪行阶段相同，只是情节不同，因而规定了更重的法定刑。结果也是一种情节，因此将“致人死亡”这一结果作为情节处理也是有其合理依据的。笔者较为赞同这一观点，原因有二：其一，这种说法回避了导致加重结果的主观心理的争论；其二，也表明了即认为“因逃逸致人死亡”中逃逸行为的相对独立性。
3、独立罪名说
这一观点认为，交通肇事后逃逸而致人死亡，完全符合一个独立的犯罪行为所具有的全部构成要件，成立一个新的作为②。又由于《解释》认为，在“因逃逸致人死亡”的行为中，可以出现共同犯罪，而且刑法明确把这种情况排除在故意杀人罪的罪名范围外，因此，交通肇事后逃逸致人死亡的就应构成一个新罪。这一观点虽有其积极意义，但并不为立法者所接受。《刑法》第条采取三个罪刑阶段的模式肯定了“因逃逸致人死亡”与交通肇事行为及交通肇事后逃逸行为之间的密切关系。当然“因逃逸致人死亡”是有其相对独立性的，但理解成完全独立的新罪却又与立法者本意相背。
笔者认为学术界对“因逃逸致人死亡”的性质的争议，是因为对此问题的理解呈现出一定的分散性。因此各自的观点都有不足之处，也有自己的合理方面，很难得出统一的权威界定，但笔者却比较倾向于情节加重犯说。这个观点有利于“因逃逸致人死亡”性质的分析，得出“因逃逸致人死亡”是对交通肇事后逃逸情节上的加重，从而也有利于对该行为的定罪量刑。
（二）“因逃逸致人死亡”的行为构成分析
根据《刑法》第条及《解释》第3条规定，行为人在交通肇事后逃逸致人死亡的处7年以上有期徒刑。这是法律对行为既有加重情节（逃逸）又造成加重结果（致人死亡）而规定的较高的法定刑。在司法实践中认定“因逃逸致人死亡”构成时应注意以下几个方面：
1、必须满足上文所论及的交通肇事后逃逸的构成要件。笔者在上文中的论述认为，“因逃逸致人死亡”是交通肇事逃逸行为在情节上的加重。因此，认定“因逃逸致人死亡”首先得满足交通肇事后逃逸的成立，而这包括三方面（1）必须以交通肇事行为的发生为前提。（2）行为人必须在行为发生后积极实施逃逸。（3）行为人逃逸有一定的主观动机。
2、必须符合《解释》第5条第1款对“因逃逸致人死亡”做出的明确解释。即指行为人在交通肇事后为逃避法律追究而逃跑，致使被害人因得不到救助而死亡的情形。这个规定是明确的，不能将其与其他情形混作一谈。比如有这样的案例，行为人在交通肇事后将被害人带离事故现场隐藏或遗弃致使被害人死亡的情形，这显然不是“因逃逸致人死亡”，而应当认定为故意杀人。
3、交通肇事者的逃逸行为与被害人死亡间具有刑法上的因果关系。受害人的死亡必须是因为肇事者的逃逸行为造成的。如果行为人在交通肇事后逃逸，但被害人的死亡却是因为介入了其他原因造成的，如被害人由他人送往医院抢救途中再次发生交通事故致死等，就不应认定为“因逃逸致人死亡”。再者，必须是行为人逃逸行为在前，而伤者因行为人逃逸而死亡的结果发生在后，两者之间存在这个顺序关系。如果交通事故发生时伤者当场死亡，则不能认定为因逃逸致人死亡，而应适用《刑法》第条规定的第二种量刑幅度予以处罚。
（三）“因逃逸致人死亡”的定罪分析
如何理解交通肇事后因逃逸致人死亡案件的定罪问题，是分析“因逃逸致人死亡”所须面对的最实际也是最重要的问题。其包括两个方面：一是“因逃逸致人死亡”与相似罪名的区别；二是关于“因逃逸致人死亡”的法律如何适用。笔者就这两方面问题展开论述。
1、“因逃逸致人死亡”与间接故意杀人罪的区别
对于《解释》第5条对“因逃逸致人死亡”所作的解释以及《刑法》第条规定的“因逃逸致人死亡”构成交通肇事罪的规定，在学术界存在争议，是因其与间接故意杀人罪在构成上存在相似性造成的。所以有这样的一种观点：“因逃逸致人死亡”不应属于交通肇事罪的加重情节，而应构成（间接）故意杀人罪。从这个角度看，行为人肇事后逃逸后在一定程度上知道由此造成的后果，且又对受害人死亡的后果持放任态度，最终造成伤者因无法得到及时救助而死亡。笔者认为，《刑法》第条规定的因逃逸致人死亡，从发生状态上看是交通肇事的延续，是对前行为的加重情节。这种加重情节是以行为人违反了交通运输管理法规，因此发生重大事故致人死亡为前提，即仍是以交通肇事罪这一先行犯罪的成立为基础的，是先行行为在结果情节上的加重。
从主观上看，行为人对可能造成伤者死亡存在间接故意，而在有的情况下，肇事者可能认为肇事行为仅会造成受害者受伤，其主观上应属于过于自信的过失。比较两种犯罪行为的差别，不能仅凭主观方面的相似，就认定行为人构成间接故意杀人罪，这是不符合犯罪构成主客观统一的理论，也是违背罪责刑相适应原则的。必须结合行为的客观方面。从客观方面讲，如果行为人构成故意杀人罪，那么就要求行为人的行为是导致伤者死亡的排他性原因。也就是说行为人对于伤者人身的危险进程处于或者基本处于排他性支配状态，排除了他人对伤者实施救助的可能性，伤者的生命安全完全依赖于行为人的救助。而显然“因逃逸致人死亡”并不能产生这种完全排他的状态，在大多数情况下，受害人是可以有获得其他人救助的可能性的。所以综合来看，“因逃逸致人死亡”与间接故意杀人是不同的两个罪。
2、关于“因逃逸致人死亡”的法律适用
对于《刑法》第条及《解释》第5条的规定的具体适用，当前同样是观点繁多，争议颇大：
第一种观点认为，这一规定“只适用于由交通肇事罪转化成的故意犯罪”。③按照该观点，行为人交通肇事后明知被害人有生命危险，但为了逃避法律追究，见死不救，驾车逃跑，导致被害人死亡，以及交通肇事后故意将身负重伤、生命垂危的被害人转移、抛弃，导致被害人死亡的，均应定交通肇事罪，处7年以上15年以下有期徒刑。
第二种观点认为，这一规定既适用于行为人交通肇事后逃跑，因过失致人死亡的情况，也适用于因间接故意致人死亡的情况，但不包括直接故意致人死亡。如有的学者认为：“肇事后逃逸，不能排除肇事人对被害人的死亡结果持放任态度，但这是肇事后的结果行为，主观上是为了逃避法律责任，因此应定交通肇事罪”。④“如果行为人发生重大事故，为逃避责任，故意将致伤人员移弃荒野造成死亡的，应按刑法关于杀人罪的规定定罪处罚”。这种观点排除了故意杀人的情形，但将间接故意致人死亡的情况纳入了其中。
第三种观点认为，这一规定只适用于行为人交通肇事后逃跑因过失致人死亡的情况，不包括因故意（包括间接故意或直接故意）致人死亡的情况。⑤
笔者认为第三种观点是比较正确合理的，它符合了刑法中犯罪构成的理论。交通肇事后逃逸致人死亡的案件应分为两个阶段来理解：交通肇事阶段和驾车逃跑致人死亡阶段。“因逃逸致人死亡”实质上是对前行为的延伸，是交通肇事后逃逸行为的加重情节。如上文所述，虽主观上可能存在间接故意，但实践中还要考虑行为的客观方面。根据笔者对“因逃逸致人死亡”与间接故意杀人罪的比较，得出的结论应当是《刑法》与《解释》的相关规定只适用于行为人交通肇事后逃跑因过失致人死亡的情况。随着我国经济的迅猛发展，汽车已经成为我们生产生活中，必不可少的工具。根据统计，年全国共有车辆万辆，在如此巨大的数量背后，也隐藏着巨大的隐患——根据交通部统计的数字，年全国共发生交通事故50余万起，死亡12万人，伤40万人。在这些惨痛的数字的背后，还隐藏着一个更为黑暗名词——交通肇事后逃逸。交通肇事后逃逸，作为一种对国家、集体、个人利益危害性极强的行为，既为伦理道德所排斥，又为法律法规所禁止。笔者通过本文对交通肇事后逃逸做出了阐述，既探讨了有关交通肇事后逃逸行为的认定及行为性质，也探讨了“因逃逸致人死亡”的定罪的实际问题等。在对有关问题进行探讨时笔者更意识到，我国现有法律对调整该领域法律关系时，还是有诸多的漏洞和争议。这对法学理论研究是一个挑战，对司法实践活动也是一个挑战，只有正确把握法律条文本身含义，有机结合实践中遇到的实际问题，才能将法的作用发挥到一个新的高度，才得以充分体现法在社会机能中的基本价值。这是本文研究问题的价值归宿。1、转引自高闽辉、纪凤华：《如何正确认定交通肇事后逃逸的行为》，中国法院网.
2、叶远鹏、叶远峰：《交通肇事因逃逸致人死亡问题研究》，《天津政法管理干部学院学报》年第1期.
3、侯国云、白岫云：《新刑法疑难问题解析与适用》，中国检察出版社年版，第页.
交通事故是社会的不幸。如果各方协力，措施得当，可以尽可能降低事故所造成的损失。交通肇事逃逸，使伤者失去了最好的抢救时机，警方侦查案件需要投入巨大的人力和物力，而肇事者将面临十分严厉的惩罚，这一切使得交通事故导致的某些社会成本成倍地增加。
今年元旦晚23时许，海南海口市新港天桥路段，一辆假军牌小轿车追尾碰撞一辆摩托车，致摩托车上4人当中的2人当场死亡，1人重伤，1人轻伤。肇事轿车则趁夜色逃离现场。
1月2日上午10时20分，民警在海口市一家汽车修理厂发现并确认已拆下假军牌换上真车牌的肇事车辆；10时40分，肇事者盛某向警方投案自首。
在这起交通事故中，交通肇事者盛某今年35岁，是一家公司的总裁。警方表示，假如盛某当时主动报警，经过事故认定，他未必要负全责。现在因为交通肇事逃逸，按有关规定，需要负全部责任。这样，盛某将被判处3年至7年有期徒刑，还要被吊销驾驶执照、终身禁驾。同时，数百名民警彻夜未眠组织侦查。
交通肇事逃逸案件目前已经成为全国公安机关经常需要面对的难题，肇事逃逸者往往是“聪明反被聪明误”。从心理学角度分析肇事逃逸的司机主要有下列心理：
恐慌心理：事故发生后，少数肇事者的内心充满着恐惧，害怕承担巨额经济赔偿责任，而选择逃逸；
畏罪心理：肇事者害怕由于造成重大事故而受到法律追究，因而心理压力增大，导至其当时心理第一想法就是尽快逃离事故现场；
侥幸心理：肇事时间和地点多是司机决定是否逃逸的重要因素。一般来说，事发地点偏僻、时间较晚的，肇事者又会想当然地认为没有目击者，从而铤而走险。就算有目击者，有些肇事者利用当前社会上一些人“多一事不如少一事”的心态，自信目击者不会去揭发的心理，认为目击者不会去举报；基于此，肇事者就认为公安机关交通管理部门不可能查明事故的全部事实和掌握全部证据，因而也就有了对事故不可能被侦破的主观自信心理，从而选择了逃离；
对立心理：肇事者对公安机关不信任心理，认为就算自首也无济于事；
自我保护心理：肇事者知道如果不逃逸，带来的将是巨额的经济赔偿和严重的法律追究。为了逃避这些，首先选择的就是逃逸。
还有事故不严重，但害怕经济赔偿的畏惧心理：肇事车辆手续不合法，驾驶人无驾驶资格，或者未按规定驾驶准驾车型，车辆未按规定购买第三者责任险等，肇事司机担心事后赔偿超出自身能力，害怕受到法律追究，干脆一走了之。
逃逸意味着司机放弃了对被撞者采取抢救、并将被撞者放到一个存在随时可能被其他过往车辆辗压的危险环境中，这不仅对被害人造成了极大的危害，而且肇事司机不履行及时救护的法定义务，又形成了新的违法行为。因此，交通肇事逃逸，无论是民事赔偿责任、行政处罚责任，或是刑事责任都要比没有逃逸严重得多。
下面我们就来详细谈谈交通肇事逃逸的相关问题：
一、什么是交通肇事逃逸？
根据《交通事故处理程序规定（公安部70号令）》规定“交通肇事逃逸”，是指发生交通事故后，交通事故当事人为逃避法律追究，驾驶车辆或者遗弃车辆逃离交通事故现场的行为。-
肇事逃逸的构成条件主要有：（1）肇事人知道自己造成了交通事故，即行为人在逃逸时必须明知自己的行为导致了交通事故的发生，这是行为人的主观认知因素。
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〈案例1〉：孙某驾驶两轮摩托车驮载其朋友刘某（二人均喝酒过量）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”。
（2）主观上是为了逃避事故责任，逃避法律的追究；实践中，肇事人逃跑的目的大多是为了“逃避法律追究”，但也有少数人是因为其他目的，如害怕遭到被害人亲友及其他围观群众的殴打而逃跑，这些人往往在逃离现场后，很快通过报告领导或报警等方式，接受法律的处理。显然，这些人的主观恶性要小得多，因此，有必要在认定时加以区分，以保证准确适用法律，做到不枉不纵。
Is this a hit and run? Escape after a traffic accident is an act of not fulfilling legal obligations after a traffic accident leads to serious consequences, but leaving the scene on its own to avoid legal responsibility. China's criminal law has made special provisions on this behavior, which has become an aggravating circumstance of traffic accident crime. The main problems in the crime of traffic accident are the nature and composition of the behavior of escaping after traffic accident, and the problem of death caused by escaping. The composition of hit and run should have the subjective intentional psychological state, the objective escape behavior, and the space-time elements of escape. The behavior of escaping after traffic accident is actually positive and has subjective malice, which should belong to action rather than omission. The death caused by escaping after traffic accident is an aggravated crime of traffic accident crime, not an aggravated crime of consequence, nor an independent crime. Therefore, the determination of death caused by escape must be based on the establishment of the crime of traffic accident. It must be an act of escape rather than an act of intentional homicide, and there must be a causal relationship between the act of escape and the death of the victim. Key words: traffic accident; Escape after traffic accident; Causing death; Nonfeasance traffic accident is one of the negligent crimes of liability accident stipulated in the criminal law of our country. Article of the criminal law of our country stipulates: "Whoever violates the traffic and transportation management laws and regulations, thus causing a major accident, causing serious injury, death or heavy losses to public or private property, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention; whoever escapes after a traffic and transportation accident or has other especially bad circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; whoever causes death due to escape shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than seven years." In this provision of the criminal law, there are three sentencing ranges in gradient type, namely, for general traffic accidents, escape after traffic accidents and "death caused by escape". For the general traffic accident behavior, whether from the qualitative or sentencing point of view, it is relatively clear and easy to operate. However, escape after traffic accident and "death caused by escape" are still controversial and difficult to deal with. In the following, the author analyzes and discusses the definition, composition, nature and responsibility of escape behavior after traffic accident, and the related issues of "death caused by escape". 1、 The definition of hit and run behavior and its composition have not been unified, 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 three views: the first is according to the provisions of Article 2 of the provisions of the Ministry of public security on the investigation and arrest of traffic accident and escape cases on June 20, 2004: the case of escape after traffic accident refers to the case that the parties deliberately drive or abandon their vehicles to escape from the scene of the traffic accident after a road traffic accident. "Escape" refers to the act of escaping from the scene of an accident. The second is Article 2 of the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the specific application of law in the trial of traffic accident criminal cases (hereinafter referred to as the "interpretation"): "escape after traffic accident" refers to the act that the actor escapes in order to escape legal investigation after a traffic accident in one of the circumstances specified in paragraph 1 of Article 2 and items (1) to (5) of paragraph 2 of this interpretation. The third one is pointed out in chenxingliang's criminal law review, "escape means that after a traffic accident, people do not report to the police according to law to protect the scene and wait for treatment, but privately escape and escape legal investigation." ① It should be said that these three statements are to look at the escape behavior after traffic accidents from different angles. Both of them have certain rationality, but they fail to comprehensively summarize the meaning of escape behavior after traffic accidents. To judge whether a behavior belongs to "escape after traffic accident", it should be analyzed from the following aspects: (1) the subjective aspect of escape after traffic accident: the subjective aspect is the subjective motivation of the actor, and the motivation of escape after traffic accident is generally to avoid rescue obligations and accountability. This motivation is a positive psychological activity. Although the crime of causing traffic accidents is a negligent crime, it has direct intention only in terms of escape behavior. Therefore, only when the perpetrator knows the accident behavior well and has the direct intention of escaping, can it constitute escape after traffic accident. Of course, in practice, the motive of the perpetrator to escape also has other manifestations, such as fear of being beaten by relatives and friends of the victim and other onlookers. After fleeing the scene, these people often receive legal treatment by reporting to the leadership or calling the police. This kind of situation must be treated differently in judicial practice, because from the subjective point of view, the criminal malice is very small, which is caused by the fear of on-site consequences. However, there is no doubt that his escape behavior is directly and deliberately caused. Therefore, in any case, the actor must know that his behavior caused a traffic accident and have a direct intention to escape, which is the subjective aspect of the actor. （2） The objective aspect of escape after traffic accident: the escape behavior after 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 behavior of escaping after traffic accident is stipulated in the interpretation of the Supreme Court on the basis of five situations. This can make it clear that escape after traffic accident is stipulated as an aggravating circumstance for the sentencing of traffic accident crime. That is to say, if the perpetrator's previous behavior did not violate the traffic and transportation management laws and regulations, or although he had traffic violations, the violations had no causal relationship with the results, or the perpetrator had only the same or secondary responsibility in the traffic accident, or the results of the traffic behavior had not yet reached the conviction standard for the basic crime of traffic accident crime, or only one person was seriously injured when he was fully responsible or primarily responsible for the accident, but did not have one of the circumstances specified in the interpretation, such as drunk driving, unlicensed driving, unlicensed driving, etc., even if the perpetrator had a subsequent escape behavior, it could not be recognized as a post accident escape. （3） The spatial element of escape behavior after traffic accident, that is, whether the behavior is limited to "escaping from the scene of the accident". In Article 2 of the provisions of the Ministry of public security on the investigation and arrest of traffic accident hit and run cases, the expression "fleeing from the scene of a traffic accident" is inappropriate. In judicial practice, there are cases where the perpetrator did not escape from the scene after the traffic accident (some are impossible to escape), but fled with fear of crime after sending the injured to the hospital or waiting for the handling of the traffic police department. How to identify this kind of escape behavior? Obviously, both subjective and objective aspects are in line with the composition of the escape behavior after traffic accidents, which should be severely punished by the law. In academic circles, some scholars believe that traffic accident crime is a kind of negligent crime, and the subjective malignancy of the perpetrator is not deep. Therefore, the treatment should not be too heavy, and the specific grasp scale should also be wide rather than strict. Therefore, the time and space of escape behavior should be limited. However, the author believes that since the escapee has subjective malignancy and is a criminal act, it must be in accordance with the principle of the consistency of crime and punishment, and must be strict in the grasp of the scale. Therefore, Article 3 of the interpretation is reasonable. "Escape after 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 main provisions on the escape behavior after traffic accidents are as long as they conform to the general main body. Therefore, from the above analysis, the author believes that the more accurate expression of escape behavior after traffic accidents should be: after a traffic accident, the perpetrator intentionally escapes for the purpose of evading rescue obligations or evading responsibility investigation. 2、 The nature of traffic hit and run behavior and its responsibility determination (I) the nature of traffic hit and run behavior the determination of the nature of the escape behavior after traffic hit and run is the key to grasp the behavior. It is of positive significance to the subjective malicious analysis and responsibility determination of the actors who escape after traffic hit and run. Generally, the nature of escape behavior after traffic accident is considered as omission. It is believed that the actor has the obligation to protect the scene and rescue the wounded, but he does not perform his obligation and chooses to escape, resulting in serious consequences. The author believes that, from the perspective of investigating the responsibility of the escaping behavior after traffic accident and protecting the victims' personal and property, the behavior of the escaping behavior after traffic accident is actually positive, with subjective malice, and should belong to action rather than omission. This is the author's fundamental tendency to the nature of escape behavior after traffic accidents. Article 70 of the road traffic safety law of the people's Republic of China stipulates: "in the event of a traffic accident on the road, the vehicle driver shall immediately stop to protect the scene; the vehicle driver who causes personal injury or death shall immediately rescue the injured and promptly report to the traffic police on duty or the traffic management department of the public security organ." The act of escaping after a traffic accident is understood as omission, which in fact equates the act of escaping with the failure to perform the obligation of action specified in this article, especially the obligation of rescue. But in practice, the actor not only violates the above obligations, but also has subjective malice towards the behavior, which is positive. In essence, the actor has taken the means of action and violated certain obligations at the same time. Therefore, although "escape" behavior overlaps with non Rescue Behavior in many cases, it may still constitute escape even if the rescue obligation is fulfilled, such as escape after the wounded are sent to the hospital. To analyze the nature of escape behavior after traffic accident, we should not start from the perspective of performing obligations, but from the actual behavior of escape. There is also a legal basis for this. According to article of the criminal law and the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the specific application of law in the trial of traffic accident criminal cases, there are three cases of escape after traffic accident: first, escape as a conviction plot; Second, escape as aggravating circumstances; The third is the escape that causes death. Although the three have different roles in conviction and sentencing, and their internal meanings are also different, the ways of escape behavior are common. They all actively take measures to escape. Regardless of the motivation, the nature of the behavior is action. （2） The identification of responsibility for traffic accident and escape behavior as mentioned above, the escape behavior after traffic accident is a subjective and intentional behavior, and its identification cannot be regarded as a negligent crime like the traffic accident behavior, but should be strictly controlled. "Whoever escapes after causing a traffic accident or has other especially flagrant circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years." This provision of the criminal law is the fundamental basis for the identification of responsibility, but the specific identification should also be combined with specific circumstances. The author explains three situations from the subjective motivation of the actor: 1. To avoid legal responsibility, but to perform the obligation of relief. If the perpetrator is knocked down by a traffic accident, he shall immediately call the emergency number and flee the scene. The medical staff sent the injured to the hospital in time. In this case, although the actor constitutes escape, his subjective malice is not deep. In order to evade legal responsibility, we bought precious time for rescuing the injured in reality. In this case, we should be lenient in determining responsibility. 2. In order to avoid rescuing the injured, he took the initiative to surrender after escaping. Some people think that in this case, the actor does not constitute escape after traffic accident, and the reason lies in the actor's voluntary surrender. However, the author believes that this view actually violates the original intention of legislation. The reason why the law stipulates that escape is an aggravating circumstance is to consider the protection of the victim's life. The most serious consequence of escape is that the injured are in lack of assistance, resulting in serious injury and death. So it is natural that this situation constitutes escape after traffic accident. However, excluding the establishment of voluntary surrender after escaping, it is also necessary to reduce the punishment of the circumstances of voluntary surrender in accordance with the criminal law. 3. Both evading legal responsibility and evading treatment of the injured. This kind of situation is the most common in reality, and the actors are mostly the concurrence of the two subjectively. In this case, it is obviously necessary to be heavier within the range of sentencing in accordance with the provisions of the law. If the result leads to the death of the victim, it is the aggravation of the escape behavior, which constitutes "death caused by escape". For such a situation, the author discusses it in more detail below. 3、 Aggravating circumstances of traffic accident and escape -- Analysis of "death caused by escape" in judicial practice, due to the characteristics of traffic accident itself, serious injury and death caused by traffic accident are common, and the cases of "death caused by escape" are particularly common, with more serious harm and social impact. Therefore, in addition to the identification of the escape behavior after traffic accidents and the discussion on the nature of the escape behavior, the more practical value and significance is the discussion on the problem of "death caused by escape". Article of the criminal law stipulates that "Whoever commits the crime of causing a traffic accident shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention; whoever escapes after causing a traffic accident or has other especially flagrant circumstances shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; whoever causes death due to escape shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than seven years." Obviously, this provision is too general and vague, and it is more difficult to use, which has become the key to how to solve many traffic accident cases. The author here makes an analysis of "death caused by escape". （1） Analysis of the nature of the crime of "death caused by escape" to understand a problem, first of all, based on the nature or nature of the behavior. Due to the different understanding of the subjective aspect, there are different opinions on the legal nature of "death caused by escape". The author analyzes several mainstream views here: 1. The theory of consequential aggravated crime is the most popular view in the academic circles at present. The main reason is: from the provisions of "causing death" in the criminal law, it meets the two conditions for aggravating the result: first, the causal relationship between the basic behavior and the aggravating result. That is to say, "death caused by escape" is the aggravating result of the basic behavior of hit and run; Second, it is possible to foresee the occurrence of aggravating results. Escape after traffic accident is different from general escape behavior. There is no doubt that the possibility and incidence of death caused by traffic accident is high. Therefore, it is certainly possible to foresee the aggravating results. This theory directly reflects the intention of the legislator. However, this theory also has some theoretical shortcomings, such as it must be demonstrated that the aggravated consequential crime has the form of "negligent basic crime + intentional aggravated result". In order to meet the requirement that the aggravated result is dependent on the basic behavior, so that "escape causes death" becomes the aggravated consequential crime of the traffic accident crime, we have to point out that the escape behavior is only the natural extension behavior after the traffic accident. But in fact, the escape behavior is relatively independent, and new causal behaviors have been involved in the escape behavior. From the perspective of the sentencing ladder stipulated in article of the criminal law, "escape causes death" is sentenced to more than 7 years of fixed-term imprisonment, which is obviously the aggravating result of "traffic accident crime + post accident escape circumstances", rather than the aggravating result of the traffic accident crime itself. This situation supports the theory of aggravating circumstances rather than the theory of aggravating results. 2. As mentioned above, the theory of aggravated circumstances can also be based on the sentencing gradient stipulated in the criminal law. It is considered that "death caused by escape" is an aggravating manifestation of circumstances, which belongs to the post crime manifestation of escaping to avoid legal responsibility. His behavior and crime are the same as the first two crime stages, but the circumstances are different, so he has stipulated a heavier statutory punishment. The result is also a kind of plot, so it is reasonable to treat the result of "causing death" as a plot. The author agrees with this view for two reasons: first, this view avoids the argument of subjective psychology that leads to aggravating results; Second, it also shows that the relative independence of escape behavior in "death caused by escape". 3. The view of "independent accusation" holds that escaping from a traffic accident and causing death fully conforms to all the constituent elements of an independent criminal act, and a new act is established. In addition, the interpretation holds that joint crimes can occur in the acts of "death caused by escape", and the criminal law clearly excludes this situation from the scope of intentional homicide. Therefore, the act of escaping from traffic accident and causing death should constitute a new crime
