在「酒駕零容忍」之社會防衛目標下，酒後駕車一直是我國高度關注之公共安全議題，伴隨「酒駕肇事」所祭出之吊扣或吊銷駕駛執照，屬剝奪人民移動與工作權益之重大行政處分。然而，第一線警察機關為兼顧刑事移送時效，常陷於自身之執法慣性，而裁決機關往往逕依從警察機關之舉發做出裁罰，而未善盡裁罰前調查之責任。 本研究依循文獻分析法、法釋義學、比較法學與個案研究法，旨在探究「酒精濃度」與「肇事傷亡」間之因果歸責界線。在深度剖析諸多交通裁決行政訴訟判決後，發現法院審查道路交通管理處罰條例中「酒駕因而肇事致人傷亡」之加重處罰要件，與前述執法慣性與裁罰慣例有所相悖。行政訴訟中，執法與裁罰端之違規認定往往與司法機關堅守之「相當因果關係」證明義務產生劇烈摩擦，導致諸多處分因這些瑕疵屢遭法院撤銷，形成執法與司法實務上之困局。 為化解此一僵局，本文針對前端舉發與後端裁罰提出制度革新模組，即「關聯性定錨」、「階段性分流」與「二次檢視」提供實務機關參考。國家防制酒駕之行政權，必須正視因果關係之論證義務，唯有將執法正義與程序嚴謹相融合，使每一次的重罰皆建立於堅不可摧之科學數值或客觀行為舉證之上，我國交通行政法制方能真正從情緒性之重懲，昇華為理性且具高度正當性之社會安全防護網。;Under the social defense goal of "zero tolerance for drunk driving，" drunk driving has long been a highly concerned public safety issue in Taiwan. The suspension or revocation of driver′s licenses imposed for "drunk driving accidents" constitutes a severe administrative disposition that profoundly deprives citizens of their rights to mobility and work. However， frontline police agencies， striving to meet the time limits for criminal case transfers， often fall into their own enforcement inertia. Consequently， adjudicating agencies frequently impose penalties based solely on police citations， failing to fulfill their investigative responsibilities prior to adjudication. Adopting literature analysis， legal dogmatics， comparative law， and case study methods， this research aims to explore the boundary of causal attribution between "alcohol concentration" and "accident casualties." Through an in-depth analysis of numerous administrative litigation judgments concerning traffic adjudications， this paper finds that the courts′ scrutiny of the aggravated penalty requirement—"drunk driving thereby causing an accident resulting in injuries or death" under the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act—contradicts the aforementioned enforcement and adjudication inertia. In administrative litigation， the determination of violations by enforcement and adjudicating authorities often clashes intensely with the judicial authorities， who strictly uphold the burden of proof for an "adequate causal relationship." As a result， numerous penalties are frequently revoked by the courts due to these flaws， creating a dilemma in both enforcement and judicial practice. To resolve this deadlock， this paper proposes institutional innovation modules targeting both front-end citations and back-end adjudications， namely "relevance anchoring，" "phased diversion，" and "secondary review，" providing practical references for relevant agencies. The state′s administrative authority in preventing drunk driving must squarely confront the obligation to prove causality. Only by merging enforcement justice with procedural strictness—ensuring that every severe penalty is grounded in unassailable scientific data or objective behavioral evidence—can Taiwan’s traffic administrative legal system truly transcend emotional heavy-handed punishments and be elevated into a rational and highly legitimate social safety net.
