Changes in the Levels of Review:
However, for these changes in judicial procedures, Cheng Jinsong, who only has primary school education, seemed still unable to understand. Before the trial, Cheng Jinsong's defense lawyer told reporters that although Cheng Jinsong had realized how serious the consequences of the accident were and now deeply regretted it, he still believed it was just a common traffic accident caused by drunk driving. For the charge of "endangering public safety by dangerous means," Cheng Jinsong still lacked sufficient understanding up to this point.
After causing the accident and continuing to collide, it constitutes intentional crime.
"Traffic Accident Crime" refers to violating road traffic management regulations, causing major traffic accidents, resulting in serious injuries, deaths, or significant losses to public or private property. "Endangering Public Safety by Dangerous Means" refers to criminals often motivated by dissatisfaction with reality or revenge on society, driving vehicles on roads to collide with pedestrians, causing multiple casualties.
Similarly, if combining specific case circumstances is insufficient to overturn the driver's mindset of "overconfidence," it would be difficult to prove that they held an attitude of acquiescence towards the harmful consequences.
It can be seen that similar cases of drunk driving accidents may be classified as either "Traffic Accident Crime" or "Endangering Public Safety by Dangerous Means." The same drunkenness leads to different crimes, resulting in vastly different sentences, such as when a man kills someone in retaliation after his friend's wife is teased.
The distinction between these two charges lies exactly there.
There is no denying that defining the perpetrator's subjective mindset during the commission of a crime is not an easy task. Currently, whether in criminal law theory circles or judicial practice departments, it is generally believed that theoretically distinguishing between "indirect intent" and "confident negligence" is extremely difficult. German renowned criminal law scholar Welzel believed that "the boundary between indirect intent and overconfidence negligence is one of the most difficult and controversial issues in criminal law theory." This is precisely why the public finds it hard to understand why the same "drunkenness" leads to different crimes.
Last year, the Infiniti drunk-driving accident case on Chang'an Street also underwent changes in levels of review: initially prosecuted by Chaoyang Procuratorate to Chaoyang Court, then the level of review was raised, and the case was prosecuted by the Second Branch of Beijing Procuratorate to the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court. The defendant Chen Jia was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of "endangering public safety by dangerous means."
Most Drunk Driving Accidents are Classified as "Traffic Accident Crimes"
Prosecution materials showed that after the incident, Cheng Jinsong received treatment at the hospital for two weeks, followed by being investigated by the police for the suspected crime of "traffic accident." He was later released on bail due to his injuries. In September last year, the Miyun Procuratorate prosecuted Cheng Jinsong, changing the charge to "endangering public safety by dangerous means."
It is understood that before 2009, in judicial practice, cases of drunk driving causing major casualties were generally classified as "traffic accident crimes," with a maximum sentence of no more than seven years.
From a Maximum of Seven Years to a Minimum of Ten Years
In terms of sentencing, since "endangering public safety by dangerous means" is an intentional crime, the starting point is ten years, with the highest penalty being death. "Traffic accident crime" is a negligent crime, starting at three years, with a maximum of seven years.
In the highly publicized "My Dad is Li Gang" drunk driving accident case, the driver Li Qiming, while driving drunk in the campus of Hebei University, hit two female students, resulting in one death and one injury, and fled the scene. He was subsequently sentenced to six years in prison for "traffic accident crime." In the Chang'an Street Infiniti drunk driving accident case, the driver Chen Jia abandoned the car and fled after hitting a family of three, resulting in two deaths and one seriously injured. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by the court for "endangering public safety by dangerous means."
After the first-instance verdict of the Li Qiming drunk driving accident case, the Wangdu County Court of Hebei Province explained to the public why the case was not classified as "endangering public safety by dangerous means." The court pointed out that Li Qiming violated traffic regulations while driving drunk. When others kindly reminded him to slow down, he overly trusted his driving skills, saying "it's fine," and negligently believed that he could avoid harmful consequences. There is no evidence proving that Li Qiming had a hope or acquiescent attitude towards the result of his vehicle colliding with two victims. After the accident, Li Qiming did not continue driving recklessly, disregarding the safety of other vehicles and pedestrians on the road, leading to even more severe consequences. Therefore, Li Qiming's actions do not meet the circumstances stipulated in judicial interpretations for constituting the crime of "endangering public safety by dangerous means." His behavior should be recognized as "traffic accident crime."
On the previous page
1
2
Next Page
Professor Ruan Qilin from China University of Political Science and Law told reporters that the main difference between "traffic accident crime" and "endangering public safety by dangerous means" does not lie in the harmful consequences of causing casualties, meaning that it cannot simply be categorized as "traffic accident crime" because of fewer casualties or as "endangering public safety by dangerous means" because of more casualties.
Different Sentencing for Similar Crimes
An experienced criminal trial judge told reporters that in drunk driving cases, if the driver has a mindset of "overconfidence, believing they can avoid" the consequences, they should be charged and punished for "traffic accident crime." If it can be proven that they have an indirect intention of "allowing harmful consequences to occur," then it should be classified as "endangering public safety by dangerous means."
Weibo Recommendation | Today's Weibo Hot Topics
In judicial practice, it is uncommon for higher courts to review cases already received but not yet judged by lower courts. Such reviews usually occur in cases with significant circumstances. Making a review decision for a drunk driving case is unprecedented in Beijing courts.
Number of Casualties Not Basis for Classification
This case was reviewed by the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, raising the level of the case. The court that originally could only impose a maximum sentence of 15 years increased to a court that can impose life imprisonment or above.
First Review of Drunk Driving Case
Same Drunk Driving
In October last year, shortly after the Miyun Court accepted the Cheng Jinsong case, the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court decided to review the case. After the Miyun Procuratorate withdrew the prosecution, the case was sent to the Second Branch of the Beijing Procuratorate for review and prosecution. In November last year, Cheng Jinsong was arrested by the police and later prosecuted at the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court.
In recent years, serious traffic accidents caused by drunk driving have occurred continuously, but courts have made inconsistent classifications and widely differing sentences for such cases, highlighting the phenomenon of different judgments for the same "drunkenness," which has sparked public debate.
Criminal trial personnel told reporters that in current judicial practice, drunk driving causing fatalities or injuries is usually classified as "traffic accident crime." If it can be proven that there was intent regarding the fatalities or injuries, then it is classified as "endangering public safety by dangerous means." Now, the reason why some malicious drunk driving cases' judgments have caused much controversy is mainly because the classification and sentencing of traffic accident crimes indeed do not match the high danger and serious consequences of drunk driving cases. This imbalance issue awaits further improvement in criminal law.
Reported by our journalist Qiu Wei
Professor Ruan Qilin believes that the public has a misconception about drunk driving constituting the crime of "endangering public safety by dangerous means," thinking that since the perpetrator knows that drunk driving is illegal and harms public safety but ignores the law and drives drunk, it constitutes an intentional crime. In fact, what the criminal law refers to as "intentional" or "negligent" pertains to the perpetrator's mindset towards the harmful results during the commission of the crime, not the "intentional" act of drunk driving.
The Opinion on Legal Application Issues Regarding Drunk Driving Crimes issued by the Supreme People's Court in 2009 pointed out that if a person continues to drive recklessly after causing an accident while drunk, resulting in major casualties, it indicates that the perpetrator subjectively holds an indifferent attitude towards the continuous occurrence of harmful results, demonstrating an intention to endanger public safety. For such drunk driving cases causing major casualties, the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means should be legally determined.
Subsequently, courts across the country classified cases where drunk drivers continued to drive recklessly after causing accidents and resulted in major casualties as "endangering public safety by dangerous means." In Beijing, judicial authorities have continuously increased penalties for malicious drunk driving cases in recent years, elevating some cases to the charge of "endangering public safety by dangerous means."
In September 2009, after the Guangdong and Sichuan Higher People's Courts sentenced two drunk driving cases as "endangering public safety by dangerous means" with life imprisonment, the Supreme People's Court unified the legal application for drunk driving crimes on September 11, 2009.
Unlike general suspects detained in detention centers, due to severe injuries sustained in the car accident, Cheng Jinsong is currently awaiting trial at a public security hospital. It is reported that according to Cheng Jinsong's physical condition, even if he can endure the trial, he might likely have to appear in court in a wheelchair. If such a scene unfolds in court, it will undoubtedly become the best illustration of how drunk driving harms both others and oneself.
According to reports, the litigation process of Cheng Jinsong's case underwent multiple changes, first upgrading the charge, then raising the level of review. Each change in judicial procedure implies that the possible criminal punishment facing drunk driver Cheng Jinsong is gradually escalating.
The deeper implication here is: through proving that the driver could no longer possibly have "excessive confidence," it proves that their subjective mindset is "indirect intent." In the widely followed Sun Weiming case, after Sun Weiming drove drunk and collided with another vehicle, in order to escape, he continued driving at excessive speed, successively colliding with four normally operating cars, causing four deaths and one severe injury, and was sentenced to life imprisonment for endangering public safety by dangerous means.
This case tells people that even if the drunk driver initially had "excessive confidence" that nothing would go wrong, once the first accident occurs, this confidence has been overturned by the facts of the accident. If the driver continues to drive, it falls under "knowingly causing harm to society and allowing such results to occur," which constitutes indirect intent, thereby constituting the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means.
Charge Changes:
The change in charges foretells a significant change in punishment. If Cheng Jinsong's behavior is charged as "traffic accident crime," the statutory sentencing range is between three to seven years in prison. If charged as "endangering public safety by dangerous means," the statutory sentencing range is over ten years in prison, life imprisonment, or death penalty.
The biggest difference between these two charges lies in the perpetrator's attitude towards the harmful consequences. "Traffic accident crime" is a negligent crime, where the perpetrator's subjective mindset is that they should have foreseen or already foresaw that their actions might cause harm to society, but negligently believed they could avoid it. "Endangering public safety by dangerous means" is an intentional crime, where the perpetrator's subjective mindset is knowing that their actions will cause harm to society and hoping or allowing such results to occur.
Cases like Cheng Jinsong's drunk driving being charged as "endangering public safety by dangerous means" carry a statutory sentencing range of over ten years in prison, life imprisonment, or death penalty. In a similar case handled by Haidian Court last year, Yang Ronghua, whose blood alcohol content was 149mg/100ml, drove drunk and overspeed on the northwest Fourth Ring Road, hitting three road maintenance workers repairing a car by the roadside. Yang Ronghua himself was also injured and was found fully responsible for the accident. Finally, the court sentenced him to six years in prison for "traffic accident crime." During the trial of this case, the families of the deceased demanded severe punishment and questioned why "endangering public safety by dangerous means" could not be charged.