据央视新闻，今天（13日），最高人民法院发布第48批指导性案例。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。其中 案例《王某群危险驾驶案》引人关注。 该案例明确，车载辅助驾驶系统不能代替驾驶人成为驾驶主体，驾驶人激活车载辅助驾驶功能后， 仍是实际执行驾驶任务的人，负有确保行车安全的责任。即使驾驶人不在驾驶位也一样。 裁判理由 基本案情 2025年9月13日0时30分许，被告人王某群饮酒后驾驶汽车，从浙江省杭州市临平区塘栖镇某饭店附近回到其居住小区。同日1时15分许， 王某群又驾驶该车离开小区，随后激活该车辅助驾驶功能，设置目的地，利用其私自安装的、可以逃避辅助驾驶系统监测的"智驾神器"配 件，使车辆在实际无人监管状态下继续行驶，其则坐到副驾驶座位睡觉。1时37分许，该车行驶至目的地附近的杭州市临平区某路段处停 止。因车辆挡道，过路群众发现车内仅有在副驾驶位睡觉的王某群，遂报警。民警到场后，对王某群进行呼气酒精含量检测，发现王某群涉 嫌醉驾，将其送至医院提取血样。经鉴定，王某群血液酒精含量为114.5毫克/100毫升，属醉酒。 经查，被告人王某群所驾汽车安装有2级驾驶自动化系统，亦即辅助驾驶系统，具 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has issued its first set of guiding cases on road traffic safety criminal law, emphasizing that the driver remains responsible for ensuring safety even when using advanced driver assistance systems [1] Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - On September 13, 2025, the defendant Wang Mouqun drove under the influence of alcohol, activating the car's driver assistance system while seated in the passenger seat, using an illegal device to bypass system monitoring [2][3] Court Ruling - The Hangzhou Linping District People's Court sentenced Wang Mouqun to one month and fifteen days of detention and a fine of 4,000 RMB for dangerous driving [4] Rationale for Judgment - The court determined that Wang Mouqun was still the responsible driver despite activating the assistance system, as it does not replace the driver but rather assists them. His actions of moving to the passenger seat and using an illegal device constituted a violation of driving responsibilities [5][6] - Wang Mouqun's blood alcohol content was measured at 114.5 mg/100 ml, qualifying as drunk driving under Chinese law, and his prior record of similar offenses influenced the severity of the ruling [6]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released its first set of guiding cases on road traffic safety, emphasizing that the driver remains responsible for ensuring safety even when using advanced driver assistance systems [1] Case Background - The defendant, Wang Mouqun, drove under the influence of alcohol and activated the car's driver assistance system while sitting in the passenger seat, using an illegal device to bypass monitoring [2][3] - Wang's blood alcohol content was measured at 114.5 mg/100 ml, indicating he was intoxicated [2] Court Ruling - The Hangzhou Linping District People's Court sentenced Wang to one month and fifteen days of detention and a fine of 4,000 RMB for dangerous driving [4] Rationale for Judgment - The court determined that Wang was still the responsible driver despite activating the assistance system, as it is classified as a Level 2 automation system that requires driver oversight [5][6] - Wang's actions constituted dangerous driving due to his prior administrative penalties for similar offenses, which influenced the court's decision to classify his behavior as a crime [8]

经济观察网 据央视新闻客户端消息，春节就要到了，正是亲友团圆、相聚宴饮的时间。"喝酒不开车， 开车不喝酒"已成为社会的共识，但随着辅助驾驶系统日益普及，"过年放心喝，车有自动驾驶""开启智 驾，闭眼到家"等说法在网络和车主间流传。酒后启动辅助驾驶功能，是否真的就能高枕无忧、免受法 律制裁？ 浙江省杭州市中级人民法院2月9日披露一起案件，杭州市临平区人民法院的一纸判决认定，醉酒后在副 驾驶位使用辅助驾驶系统"无人驾驶"行为构成危险驾驶罪，为智能驾驶厘清责任边界。 男子使用"智驾神器" 醉驾时爬到副驾驶位酣睡 2025年9月13日凌晨，王某某在与朋友聚餐饮用白酒、啤酒后，先是驾车返回小区，之后再次驾车驶入 公共道路。车辆行驶中，他开启辅助驾驶系统，并使用模拟手握方向盘状态的配件，随后从主驾驶位直 接爬到副驾驶位，很快进入酣睡状态。 最终，车辆因系统自动降速而停在高架路口。 经群众报警，王某某被民警查获。经检测，其血液中乙醇含量高达114.5mg/100ml，已达醉驾标准。 临平法院审理认为，根据国家市场监督管理总局和国家标准化管理委员会联合发布的《汽车驾驶自动化 分级》（GB/T 40429-2021），目前车辆 ...

最高检有关部门负责人表示，一些群众对醉驾危害后果缺乏准确认识，重大恶性事故仍然偶有发生。行 为人饮酒后，控制能力减弱，酒后驾车极易发生事故，严重危害本人和他人生命财产安全。有的群众高 估自己酒后驾驶控制能力，认为"酒驾是小事""不被查就没事"。事实上，醉酒驾驶不仅可能触犯危险驾 驶罪(最高刑期为6个月拘役并处罚金)，且行为恶劣、后果严重的还可能触犯交通肇事罪(最高刑期为15 年有期徒刑)、以危险方法危害公共安全罪(最高刑罚为死刑)等更重的罪名，面临更重刑罚。如检察机关 办理的杜某某以危险方法危害公共安全案。杜某某夜间醉酒后驾驶机动车，多次蹭倒、撞击过往车辆和 行人，造成8人死亡、4人受伤。检察机关依法对其批准逮捕，并以涉嫌以危险方法危害公共安全罪提起 公诉。 经济观察网据央视新闻客户端消息，记者今天(26日)从最高检了解到，2025年1至11月，全国检察机关 共受理公安机关移送危险驾驶案件23.6万人，同比下降22.1%；提起公诉21.1万人，同比下降17.2%，危 险驾驶案件连续两年较大幅度下降。与此同时，危险驾驶罪仍是检察机关受理最多的犯罪，占受理所有 刑事案件人数的14.4%。 据了解，2023年底，" ...

Core Insights - The Supreme People's Procuratorate reported a significant decrease in drunk driving criminal cases and prosecutions from January to November 2025, indicating effective governance in drunk driving management [1][2] - Despite the decline, dangerous driving remains the most frequently prosecuted crime, highlighting ongoing public misconceptions about the dangers of drunk driving [2] Group 1: Case Statistics - From January to November 2025, the number of dangerous driving cases accepted by procuratorial organs was 236,000, a year-on-year decrease of 22.1% [1] - The number of public prosecutions for dangerous driving was 211,000, reflecting a year-on-year decrease of 17.2% [1] Group 2: Public Awareness and Legal Consequences - Many individuals still underestimate the dangers of drunk driving, believing it to be a minor offense, which can lead to severe legal consequences [2] - Drunk driving can result in charges ranging from dangerous driving (maximum penalty of 6 months detention and fines) to more serious offenses like traffic manslaughter (up to 15 years imprisonment) and endangering public safety (potentially death penalty) [2] - The new regulations classify offenses based on "degree of intoxication + other circumstances," ensuring that all instances of drunk driving face legal repercussions [2] Group 3: Case Examples - A specific case involved an individual who, after drinking, attempted to evade police and was later prosecuted for dangerous driving, receiving a one-month detention and a fine of 2,000 yuan [3] - The procuratorial organs emphasize the importance of public education on drunk driving regulations to foster a safer driving environment [3]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights recent legal cases in China involving individuals who drove under the influence of alcohol while using advanced driver-assistance systems, emphasizing the legal consequences and safety risks associated with such actions [1][2][4]. Group 1: Legal Cases - A case from Nanjing involved an individual, Wang, who drove for approximately two hours and covered about 200 kilometers while intoxicated, with a blood alcohol content of 151.2 mg/100ml, leading to a conviction for dangerous driving [1]. - Another case in Hunan involved a man who drove back to Changsha after drinking, with a blood alcohol level of 225 mg/100ml, resulting in severe penalties including the revocation of his driver's license for five years [2]. - A case in Hangzhou featured a man who used a so-called "smart driving device" while intoxicated, leading to a conviction for dangerous driving and a sentence of one month and fifteen days in detention, along with a fine of 4,000 yuan [2]. Group 2: Safety and Regulatory Insights - The Ministry of Public Security in China has stated that current automotive "smart driving" systems do not possess full autonomous driving capabilities and remain in the assisted driving phase, highlighting the risks of driver negligence, especially under the influence of alcohol [4]. - The use of driver-assistance systems while intoxicated is legally classified as dangerous driving, reinforcing the need for awareness regarding the limitations of such technologies [4].

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal implications of using automated driving features while under the influence of alcohol, emphasizing that such features do not absolve the driver of responsibility for dangerous driving [1][2]. Group 1: Case Details - The individual, Yan, was caught driving under the influence with a blood alcohol content of 201.4 mg/100 ml after a night of drinking [1]. - The first instance court sentenced Yan to three months of detention and a fine of 6,000 yuan for dangerous driving [1]. Group 2: Legal Interpretation - The second instance court ruled that even if Yan had activated the vehicle's automated driving feature, it does not reduce his culpability as the vehicle was equipped only with a driver assistance system, which requires driver oversight [2]. - The court emphasized that the activation of driver assistance systems does not change the fact that the driver remains responsible for the vehicle's operation, especially when intoxicated [2].

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal implications of using automated driving features while under the influence of alcohol, emphasizing that such features do not absolve the driver of responsibility for dangerous driving [1][2]. Summary by Sections Case Background - A driver, Yan, was caught driving under the influence with a blood alcohol content of 201.4 mg/100ml after a night out with friends [1]. - The initial court ruling sentenced Yan to three months of detention and a fine of 6,000 yuan for dangerous driving [1]. Legal Arguments - Yan argued that activating the vehicle's automated driving function reduced road danger and requested a lighter sentence [1]. - The court found no evidence that the automated driving feature was engaged at the time of the traffic stop, and even if it was, the vehicle was equipped only with a driver assistance system, which requires significant driver involvement [2]. Court Ruling - The Beijing Second Intermediate Court upheld the original ruling, stating that the driver remains responsible for the vehicle's operation, even when using driver assistance systems [2]. - The court emphasized that the activation of such systems does not change the driver's legal responsibility, particularly when intoxicated [2].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications and recent changes in the handling of drunk driving cases in China, emphasizing the need for stricter enforcement and public awareness as the holiday season approaches [1][2]. Summary by Sections Legal Framework - Drunk driving can lead to various charges, including a maximum of 6 months of detention for dangerous driving, up to 15 years for traffic accident crimes, or even death penalty for endangering public safety [1]. - The Supreme People's Court and other authorities have optimized the standards for drunk driving offenses, resulting in a significant decrease in case occurrences and prosecutions [2]. Changes in Drunk Driving Standards - The new guidelines introduced in late 2023 adjust the previous strict liability standard of "over 80 mg" to a more nuanced approach considering specific circumstances [2]. - Blood alcohol content (BAC) thresholds are now categorized into three ranges: 80-150 mg (no criminal charges if no aggravating circumstances), 150-180 mg (eligible for probation), and over 180 mg (subject to imprisonment) [2]. Case Examples - **Case 1**: A driver, after causing an accident and fleeing, was charged with endangering public safety due to reckless behavior, resulting in a sentence of 1 year and 8 months [3]. - **Case 2**: A driver who caused two accidents and fled was sentenced to 5 months of detention and fined 9,000 RMB, highlighting the strict penalties for repeat offenders [4][5]. - **Case 3**: A driver with a BAC of 103.1 mg, who had a prior drunk driving offense, was sentenced to 1 month and 15 days of detention, demonstrating the impact of prior offenses on sentencing [6]. - **Case 4**: A driver who attempted to evade police checks and collided with a police vehicle was sentenced to 1 month and 15 days of detention, emphasizing the seriousness of obstructing law enforcement [7][8]. - **Case 5**: A driver who misled police about his identity and had a BAC of 100 mg was sentenced to 1 month of detention, showcasing the consequences of obstructing investigations [9][10]. - **Case 6**: A driver operating a vehicle not permitted by their license was sentenced to 2 months of detention, reinforcing the importance of adhering to licensing regulations [11].