2026年2月13日，最高人民法院发布第48批指导性案例（指导性案例268-272号）。这是最高人民法院首 次发布道路交通安全刑事专题指导性案例。 广东省茂名市中级人民法院于2022年7月28日作出（2021）粤09刑初71号刑事附带民事判决：被告人严 某聪犯以危险方法危害公共安全罪，判处死刑，剥夺政治权利终身（其他判项略）。宣判后，严某聪以 其行为构成交通肇事罪等为由，提出上诉。广东省高级人民法院于2023年10月31日作出（2022）粤刑终 1036号刑事裁定：驳回上诉，维持原判，依法报请最高人民法院核准。最高人民法院于2025年1月20日 作出刑事裁定，依法核准被告人严某聪死刑。 【基本案情】 2021年8月21日晚，被告人严某聪从他人处购买毒品，并于22日1时许、4时许、7时许分三次吸食。22日 9时许，严某聪驾驶汽车行驶至广东省茂名市S280线某路段时，撞击驾驶摩托车的被害人杨某，致杨某 颅脑损伤合并创伤性休克死亡。为逃避法律追究，严某聪驾车加速逃离，在距上述现场约950米处，又 连续冲撞驾驶摩托车的被害人杨某梅、吴某、梁某和驾驶汽车的冯某，速度高达99公里/小时，致杨某 梅颅脑损伤死亡、吴某创伤性 ...

近期，广东中山公安机关破获一起无人机"黑飞"案，一名犯罪嫌疑人在半年内，20余次将无人机送上千 米高空，最高超过8000米，其行为已涉嫌以危险方法危害公共安全。 在严密的空管体系下，他是如何让无人机如入无人之境？这种无视规则的"任性"飞行，又会给空中安全 带来何等致命威胁？记者对此展开了调查。 高飞8000米无人机闯入民航客机巡航高度 接警后，民警在社交平台上查看到有网民发布了多条航拍无人机角度拍摄的"穿云"视频。根据画面上显 示的实际高度数值，这些无人机均已飞到数千米的高度，最高超过8000米。 据介绍，以危险方法危害公共安全罪，是指用放火、决水、爆炸、投放危险物质或者其他危险方法，危 害公共安全的行为。"其他危险方法"，是指与上述行为危险性相当的，足以危害公共安全的方法。 "这个高度已达民航客机常规巡航高度，且从视频画面来看，无人机飞行点位在珠江出海口附近，周边 有广州白云、深圳宝安、珠海金湾等多个机场，存在重大航空安全隐患。"中山市公安局刑事侦查支队 视频侦查大队大队长方晓亮说。 中山大学法学院教授郭天武表示，法律上没有明确规定"其他危险方法"有哪些，司法实践中具体情况是 多种多样的。具体到本案，嫌疑人 ...

近期，广东中山公安机关破获一起无人机"黑飞"案，一名犯罪嫌疑人在半年内，20余次将无人机送上千米高空，最高超过8000米，其行为已涉嫌 以危险方法危害公共安全。 "黑飞"，一般指未经批准或者超审批权限在管制空域内实施飞行活动，以及未实名登记实施飞行活动等违反《无人驾驶航空器飞行管理暂行条 例》等法律法规规定的违法违规行为。公安部对此高度重视，2025年12月以来，部署全国公安机关开展严厉打击超高"黑飞"违法犯罪"净空"专项 工作，严厉惩处无人机"黑飞"。 在严密的空管体系下，他是如何让无人机如入无人之境？这种无视规则的"任性"飞行，又会给空中安全带来何等致命威胁？记者对此展开了调 查。 高飞8000米，无人机竟然闯入民航客机巡航高度 2025年12月7日，广东中山110接报警称，有人在网上发布无人机"黑飞"视频，并称无人机飞行高度已超过8000米。 接警后，民警在社交平台上查看到有网民发布了多条航拍无人机角度拍摄的"穿云"视频，视频内容为空中视角的云上风光，部分画面还记录了从 低空起飞到云上的过程。从画面显示的地面建筑物等大小可以看出，这些飞行已经远远突破航拍从业者和爱好者一般飞行的高度。根据画面上显 示的实 ...

Core Viewpoint - The court sentenced Liao Mouyu to death with a two-year reprieve for endangering public safety, resulting in the deaths of three individuals due to reckless driving during a peak traffic period [1][2][8]. Summary by Relevant Sections Incident Details - On October 2, 2024, Liao Mouyu drove an electric vehicle at high speed through a busy intersection, leading to a fatal collision with a family crossing the street, resulting in the immediate deaths of three individuals: Hu (31 years old), Wang (30 years old), and Hu (under 1 year old) [1][10]. Legal Findings - The court found that Liao's actions constituted a serious violation of traffic safety regulations, as he knowingly drove at excessive speeds in a densely populated area, which posed a significant risk to public safety [2][5]. - The court determined that Liao's behavior was characterized by indirect intent, as he did not actively seek to harm the victims but acted recklessly under emotional distress [6][8]. Sentencing Rationale - The court's decision to impose a death sentence with a two-year reprieve was based on the severity of the crime, the particularly serious consequences, and Liao's acknowledgment of his actions post-incident, which constituted a form of self-surrender [7][8]. - The court emphasized that Liao's actions were not merely negligent but demonstrated a blatant disregard for public safety, especially given the context of driving during a holiday peak period [5][8]. Public and Legal Reactions - The victims' family expressed a strong desire for justice, indicating they would pursue an appeal against the sentence, reflecting the societal impact and sensitivity surrounding the case [16].

Core Viewpoint - The case involves the defendant, Liao Mouyu, who was found guilty of endangering public safety through dangerous driving, resulting in the death of three individuals. The court determined that Liao's actions constituted indirect intent rather than negligence, leading to a sentence of death with a two-year reprieve [2][3][5]. Group 1: Criminal Behavior and Intent - Liao Mouyu's behavior of driving at a speed of 128.96 km/h in a zone with a speed limit of 40 km/h during a peak holiday period posed a severe threat to public safety, resulting in three fatalities [5]. - The distinction between direct and indirect intent was highlighted, with Liao lacking a motive to intentionally harm the victims, thus categorizing his mindset as indirect intent [3][4]. - The court noted that Liao's subsequent actions, such as attempting to brake and steer away from the victims, did not alter the initial assessment of his mindset during the dangerous driving [2][4]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Sentencing - Liao Mouyu was recognized for having self-reported his actions by calling emergency services and remaining at the scene, which constituted a confession under legal definitions [4]. - The court's decision to impose a death sentence with a two-year suspension was based on the severity of the crime, the indirect intent, and the presence of mitigating factors such as the confession [5]. - The ruling emphasized that while Liao's actions were extremely dangerous, his mindset and cooperation with authorities warranted a sentence that was not immediately executed [5].

Core Viewpoint - The court has sentenced Liao Mouyu to death with a two-year reprieve for endangering public safety through reckless driving, resulting in three fatalities. The judgment emphasizes Liao's indirect intent and the severe consequences of his actions during a peak traffic period [5][6]. Group 1: Case Background - Liao Mouyu was aware of the vehicle's acceleration capabilities and the speed limits on the main road in Jingdezhen, where he drove recklessly during a holiday peak time, indicating a disregard for public safety [2][3]. - The incident occurred on a busy urban main road, where Liao's actions posed a significant and unpredictable danger to the public, ultimately leading to three deaths [3][4]. Group 2: Legal Findings - The court determined that Liao's mindset constituted indirect intent rather than negligence, as he continued to accelerate despite knowing the risks involved [3][4]. - Liao's actions were not motivated by a desire to harm the victims, as he had no prior relationship with them and was in a distressed state due to a personal dispute [4][5]. Group 3: Sentencing Rationale - The court's decision to impose a death sentence with a two-year suspension was based on the severity of Liao's actions, which included exceeding the speed limit of 40 km/h by reaching 128.96 km/h [5][6]. - Liao's cooperation with authorities post-incident, including calling for help and remaining at the scene, was recognized as a mitigating factor contributing to the self-surrender classification [5][6].

Core Viewpoint - The court sentenced Liao Mouyu to death with a two-year reprieve for endangering public safety, resulting in the deaths of three individuals due to reckless driving [1][2][6] Group 1: Incident Details - On October 2, 2024, Liao Mouyu drove an electric vehicle with a passenger, and after a dispute, he accelerated through a red light, leading to a collision with pedestrians [1][5] - The incident resulted in the immediate death of Hu Mou (31 years old), Wang Mou (30 years old), and Hu Mou (under 1 year old) [1][6] Group 2: Court's Rationale - The court found that Liao Mouyu ignored traffic safety regulations, knowing that high-speed driving in a crowded area could lead to severe consequences, which constituted a crime of endangering public safety [2][6] - The court acknowledged Liao's attempt to brake and steer away from the victims, indicating a mindset of indirect intent rather than direct malice, which influenced the sentencing [2][6]

Core Viewpoint - The incidents of falling fire extinguishers from high-rise buildings in Hechi, Guangxi, have raised significant safety concerns among residents, highlighting the inadequacies in property management and safety measures in high-rise residential areas [1][4][18]. Group 1: Incident Details - Two fire extinguishers, each weighing 6.1 kilograms, fell from a residential building within two hours, causing damage to a vehicle parked 8 meters away [1][4]. - The first incident occurred at 3:14 PM, followed by a second incident at 5:34 PM, with both extinguishers originating from the same building [6][4]. - The vehicle owner expressed shock and fear, noting that the vehicle had never been involved in a major accident before [4][18]. Group 2: Safety Concerns - Observations revealed that the building from which the extinguishers fell had inadequate safety measures, including insufficient fire extinguisher numbers and easily accessible windows [9][7]. - The lack of surveillance cameras in key public areas contributed to the inability to identify the responsible party for the incidents [16]. - The physical barriers to prevent falling objects were deemed inadequate, with open windows and unprotected ledges posing significant risks [9][16]. Group 3: Legal Implications - The law stipulates that individuals who throw objects from heights can face criminal charges, including potential imprisonment for severe cases [18]. - Victims have the right to claim full compensation for damages from the responsible party, which could include the property management if safety measures were not adequately implemented [18]. - In cases where the perpetrator cannot be identified, property management may bear the financial responsibility for damages, highlighting the importance of effective safety protocols [18].

Core Viewpoint - The rise of drone-assisted hunting in China, particularly targeting livestock and protected species, poses significant ecological and safety risks, prompting calls for stricter regulations and enforcement [3][6][17]. Group 1: Incidents of Drone Hunting - Farmers across China, including Wang Zhenming in Liaoning, have reported livestock being injured or killed by drones equipped with metal arrows, leading to substantial financial losses [2][4]. - The use of drones for hunting has escalated since wild boars were removed from the protected species list, leading to a surge in hunting activities using advanced technology [3][5]. - Videos of drone hunting are proliferating on social media platforms, with individuals showcasing their hunting exploits, further normalizing this behavior [3][8]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Challenges - Current laws do not adequately address the use of drones as hunting tools, leading to a regulatory gap that allows such practices to continue unchecked [16][17]. - Legal experts indicate that while hunting wild boars is no longer universally protected, local governments have varying regulations, complicating enforcement [7][15]. - The lack of specific legislation regarding drone hunting tools creates challenges for law enforcement, as existing laws primarily focus on traditional hunting methods [16][17]. Group 3: Economic Impact on Farmers - Wang Zhenming estimates losses of around 30,000 yuan due to injuries sustained by his pigs, with affected animals producing significantly fewer offspring [4][5]. - The financial implications extend beyond individual farmers, potentially affecting local economies reliant on livestock farming [4][5]. Group 4: Availability of Hunting Equipment - Drone hunting equipment, including metal arrows, is readily available for purchase online, often without any regulatory oversight or required qualifications [9][10]. - The low cost of these hunting tools, with complete sets available for as little as 25 yuan, raises concerns about accessibility and misuse [9][10]. Group 5: Ecological and Safety Concerns - Experts warn that the unchecked use of drones for hunting could lead to severe ecological damage and increased risks to public safety, as the technology can easily target unintended victims [8][15]. - The potential for drones to cause harm to humans, as evidenced by near-misses during hunting attempts, highlights the urgent need for regulatory action [8][15].

Core Viewpoint - The rise of drone-assisted hunting, particularly targeting livestock and protected species, poses significant ecological and safety risks, prompting calls for stricter regulations and enforcement [1][5][10]. Group 1: Incidents of Drone Hunting - Farmers in various regions of China, including Wang Zhenming in Liaoning, have reported losses due to livestock being attacked by drones equipped with metal arrows, leading to financial damages amounting to tens of thousands of yuan [1][2]. - The use of drones for hunting has escalated since wild boars were removed from the protected species list, resulting in a surge of illegal hunting activities [5][6]. - Reports indicate that not only livestock but also protected wildlife are being targeted, with incidents of drone hunting leading to severe injuries and fatalities among animals [3][10]. Group 2: Technology and Accessibility - Drones equipped with thermal imaging and capable of carrying heavy metal arrows are easily accessible, with complete kits available for as little as 25 yuan on e-commerce platforms [10][12]. - The technology allows hunters to locate and target animals at night, significantly increasing the efficiency and lethality of hunting practices [5][9]. - The lack of regulatory oversight on drone usage for hunting has led to widespread adoption of this method, with many individuals engaging in illegal hunting without proper qualifications [11][19]. Group 3: Legal and Regulatory Challenges - Current laws do not adequately address the use of drones as hunting tools, leading to a legal gray area where such practices can occur without significant repercussions [18][19]. - Legal experts suggest that drone hunting could potentially violate laws against illegal hunting and property damage, depending on the circumstances and targets involved [16][17]. - There is a pressing need for updated legislation to classify drone-mounted hunting tools as illegal, to prevent further ecological damage and ensure public safety [19][20].