一、案件基本概况
2023年3月4日，孙某迪在未取得机动车驾驶证、血液酒精含量达119mg/100ml的醉酒状态下驾车行驶，途中在高速公路启用汽车驾驶辅助功能，后追尾前车引发交通事故，负事故主要责任。浙江省宁波市鄞州区人民法院经审理作出（2024）浙0212刑初290号刑事判决，认定孙某迪构成危险驾驶罪，判处拘役三个月并处罚金六千元，判决生效后无上诉、抗诉。该案入库编号：2025-06-1-055-003，核心争议聚焦于醉酒后启用驾驶辅助功能行驶，能否免除危险驾驶罪刑事责任。
本案核心争议为醉酒状态下启用驾驶辅助功能行驶的行为定性，裁判以刑法规定与自动驾驶分级标准为双重依据，构建清晰论证逻辑：
1. 锚定刑法规范基础：依据《刑法》第一百三十三条之一，道路上醉酒驾驶机动车即构成危险驾驶罪，立法未设置“启用辅助驾驶即可免责”的例外情形，醉酒驾驶的违法性评价核心在于驾驶人的主观状态与行为危险性，不因技术功能启用而消除。
2. 区分辅助驾驶与自动驾驶边界：参照国标《汽车驾驶自动化分级》（GB/T 40429-2021），案涉功能属于0-2级驾驶辅助，无法替代驾驶人成为驾驶主体；系统激活后，驾驶人仍需持续监管车辆、参与动态驾驶任务，承担行车安全核心责任，不能以技术介入为由脱离驾驶义务。
3. 否定技术免责抗辩，明确责任归属：孙某迪无证、醉酒驾驶并在启用辅助功能后疏于管控车辆，事故责任归属于驾驶人本人，其“开启辅助即未实施驾驶行为”的辩解不成立；结合无证、高速行驶、肇事等从重情节，综合考量社会危害性作出刑罚裁量，明确驾驶辅助不转移刑事责任，驾驶人始终是安全第一责任人的核心规则。
三、案例规则的实务与社会价值
该案直面智能网联汽车普及中的法律空白，划定技术应用与刑事追责的边界：其一，破除“辅助驾驶=自动免责”的认知误区，重申驾驶人的法定安全义务，防范利用技术规避酒驾刑责的风险；其二，衔接自动驾驶分级标准与刑事司法裁判，为同类案件提供统一裁判标尺，弥合技术发展与法律适用的滞后性；其三，对公众、车企与行业形成警示，推动智能驾驶场景下安全意识与责任意识的同步升级，助力自动驾驶产业合规、有序发展。
English Version
Driving Assistance Does Not Exempt Liability: Clarifying Criminal Liability Boundaries in the Era of Autonomous Driving from the Sun Moudi Dangerous Driving Case
I. Case Overview
On March 4, 2023, Sun Moudi drove a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license while intoxicated, with a blood alcohol content of 119mg/100ml. He activated the vehicle’s driving assistance function on an expressway, then rear-ended another vehicle, causing a traffic accident for which he bore primary liability. The People’s Court of Yinzhou District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province rendered Criminal Judgment (2024) Zhe 0212 Xing Chu No.290, convicting Sun Moudi of the crime of dangerous driving, sentencing him to three months of criminal detention and a fine of 6,000 RMB. The judgment took effect with no appeal or protest filed. With the filing number 2025-06-1-055-003, the core dispute centered on whether activating driving assistance while intoxicated exempts the actor from criminal liability for dangerous driving.
II. Core Opinions and Reasoning Logic of the Judgment
The pivotal issue was the characterization of driving under the influence with driving assistance enabled. The court grounded its reasoning on criminal law provisions and national standards for driving automation classification, forming a rigorous logical framework:
1. Foundational Criminal Law Application: Pursuant to Article 133-1 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, operating a motor vehicle on roads while intoxicated constitutes the crime of dangerous driving, with no statutory exception for activating driving assistance. The unlawfulness of drunk driving hinges on the driver’s mental state and the inherent risk of the conduct, which cannot be negated by technological functions.
2. Distinction Between Driving Assistance and Autonomous Driving: In line with the national standard Classification of Driving Automation for Motor Vehicles (GB/T 40429-2021), the function in question fell within Level 0-2 driving assistance, which cannot replace the human driver as the primary driving subject. Even with the system activated, the driver retains the obligation to continuously monitor the vehicle, participate in dynamic driving tasks, and bear ultimate responsibility for road safety.
3. Rejection of Technological Defense and Confirmation of Liability Attribution: Sun Moudi’s defense that activating assistance relieved him of driving conduct was rejected. His violations—driving without a license, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and failing to maintain control after enabling assistance—established his liability for the accident. Aggravating circumstances including unlicensed operation, expressway driving, and causing a crash were weighed to impose the penalty, affirming the core rule that driving assistance does not transfer criminal liability, and the human driver remains the primary responsible party for safety.
III. Practical and Social Value of the Precedent
This case addresses legal ambiguities amid the popularization of intelligent connected vehicles and defines the boundary between technological application and criminal accountability. First, it dispels the misconception that driving assistance equates to immunity from liability, reaffirming the driver’s statutory safety obligations and deterring attempts to evade drunk driving penalties via technology. Second, it aligns criminal adjudication with national automation classification standards, unifying judicial benchmarks for analogous cases and bridging the gap between technological advancement and legal adaptation. Third, it serves as a warning to the public, automakers, and the industry, promoting the parallel elevation of safety awareness and accountability in intelligent driving scenarios, and supporting the compliant, orderly development of the autonomous driving industry.
（注：该案入库编号：2025-06-1-055-003，裁判文书案号：（2024）浙0212刑初290号）
10个月宝宝每天需要喝多少奶粉？
