醉驾行为入刑的立法目的已得以初步实现。然而，其作为微罪行为却大规模地得以入罪，必然会带来各种不利后果。因此，为醉驾行为构建一套行之有效的出罪路径体系就显得十分必要。基于这些考量，本文主要从以下几个方面展开研究：
       第一，从政策考量、正当依据以及正面意义三个方面可以探索出为作为微罪行为的醉驾行为保留一定出罪空间的合理性。在我国现行有效的法律体系下，醉驾行为的出罪路径从宏观上可以被分为实体法出罪、程序法出罪路径与证据法出罪路径。
       第二，行为不符合醉驾型危险驾驶罪的构成要件是醉驾行为在实体法领域内出罪的消极路径。对于醉驾型危险驾驶罪构成要件符合性的认定，应在批判抽象危险反证方法的基础上，建构克制型实质解释的方法，即专注于对客观构成要件中实行行为的各具体要素进行实质意义上的目的性限缩解释。而克制型实质解释方法对目的性限缩这一解释目标的实现，不只依赖于实质解释，在特殊情况下也可以贯穿形式解释的方法。其限缩对象包括醉酒状态、驾驶行为、驾驶工具与空间场域四个要素。
       第三，行为具备违法性阻却事由是醉驾行为在实体法领域内出罪的积极路径。具体方式如下：首先，当具备构成要件符合性的醉驾行为符合《刑法》第13条但书的规定时，可以判定其具有可罚的违法性阙如这一违法性阻却事由。其次，当具备构成要件符合性的醉驾行为符合《刑法》第21条规定时，可以判定其具有紧急避险这一违法性阻却事由。其中，最典型的情形就是醉酒后驾车送急诊患者就医的情形。再次，具备构成要件符合性的醉驾行为无法单独具备《刑法》第21条规定的正当防卫这一违法性阻却事由，而只能作为被包摄在具备防卫目的的目的行为之手段行为，与目的行为共同构成正当防卫。最后，在醉驾行为发生的场合，其他的违法性阻却事由主要包括自救行为和法令行为。
       第四，醉驾行为在有责性阶层的实体法出罪路径是一种既包含积极路径又包括消极路径的综合路径。详言之，醉驾行为在有责性阶层的出罪路径主要有以下两种情形：其一，通过认定醉驾行为的责任形式（故意）不存在而阻却有责性阶层的消极出罪路径；其二，通过认定特定有责性阻却事由的存在而阻却有责性阶层的积极出罪路径，具体来看，就是醉驾行为在避险过当的情形下，可以因期待不可能这一超法规的责任阻却事由的存在而得以出罪。
       第五，在刑事诉讼程序中，对在实体法层面已然构成犯罪的醉驾行为可以通过以下两条路径实现独立出罪：其一，因实体法层面已然成立犯罪的醉驾行为缺乏刑事追究的可能性而予以出罪，具体包括犯罪已过追诉时效期限的情形和犯罪嫌疑人、被告人死亡的情形；其二，因实体法层面已然成立犯罪的醉驾行为缺乏入罪处理的必要性，而通过微罪不究的方式予以出罪，其中最为匹配的程序性制度就是审查起诉阶段的不起诉制度。
       第六，醉驾行为在刑事证据法层面出罪的路径是证据存在不适格问题。具体来看，如果据以证明犯罪事实的证据存在证据能力缺失或证明力不足的问题，那么就应在程序上将其不当作犯罪处理。
       第七，对于出罪之后的特定醉驾行为，并非一放了之，而是应将其降格评价为行政违法行为予以规制。从司法层面来看，应运用当然解释原理将出罪之后的特定醉驾行为解释为《道交法》第91条第1款所规定的酒驾行为，从而可以顺理成章地实现对其进行拘留、罚款的行政处罚。而从立法层面来看，就是要恢复原有“二元制”制裁模式的立法规定，并建立轻微罪分流程序与其它各种能充分满足对醉驾行为予以特殊预防的需求的新型制裁措施。

     The legislative purpose of criminalizing drunk driving has been initially realized. However, its large-scale criminalization as a petty crime will inevitably bring about the aforementioned adverse consequences. Therefore, it is very necessary to construct an effective criminal path system for drunk driving. Based on these considerations, this paper mainly conducts research from the following aspects:
      First, from the three aspects of policy consideration, justifiable basis and positive significance, we can explore the rationality of reserving a certain criminal space for drunk driving as a minor crime. In the current effective legal norm system in my country, the criminal path of drunk driving behavior can be divided into substantive law criminal path, procedural law criminal path and evidence law criminal path from a macro perspective.
     Second, judging that the behavior does not meet the constituent elements of the crime of drunk-driving dangerous driving is a negative path for drunk-driving behavior to commit crimes in the field of substantive law. For the determination of the conformity of the constituent elements of the crime of drunk driving and dangerous driving, a restrained substantive interpretation method should be constructed on the basis of criticizing the method of abstract dangerous disproving. That is to say, it focuses on the purposeful and narrow interpretation of each specific element of the implementation of the objective constituent elements in the substantive sense. The restraint-type substantive interpretation method realizes the interpretation goal of purposive narrowing, not only relying on substantive interpretation, but can also run through the method of formal interpretation under special circumstances. The restricted objects include four elements: drunken state, driving behavior, driving tools and space field.
      Third, judging that the behavior has an illegal obstructive reason is a positive path for drunk driving to commit crimes in the field of substantive law. The specific methods are as follows: First, when the drunk driving behavior that meets the requirements of the constitutive requirements complies with the provisions of the proviso to Article 13 of the Criminal Law, it can be determined that the illegality is punishable. Secondly, the drunk driving behavior that meets the constitutive requirements can be set up as an illegal reason for the establishment of emergency avoidance as stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Law. One of the most typical scenarios is driving an emergency patient to a doctor while drunk. Thirdly, the drunk driving behavior that meets the constitutive requirements cannot independently constitute the legitimate defense stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Law, but can only be used as a means of behavior that is included in the purposeful behavior with the purpose of defense. Illegal obstructing grounds. Finally, in the case of drunk driving, other illegal obstacles mainly include self-help behavior and legal behavior.
     Fourth, the substantive legal culpability path of drunk driving behavior in the responsible class can be regarded as a comprehensive path that includes both positive and negative paths. In detail, there are two main culpability paths for drunk driving behavior in the responsible class: one is the passive culpability path that prevents the responsible class by determining that the form of responsibility (intentional) for drunk driving behavior does not exist; , by identifying the existence of a specific responsible but obstructing cause to obstruct the active criminal path of the responsible class. Specifically, it is the case that the drunk driving behavior can be expected to be impossible because of excessive risk avoidance. Conviction against the existence of the cause.
     Fifth, in the criminal procedure, the drunk driving behavior that has been established as a crime at the substantive law level can be independently incriminated through the following two paths: First, the drunk driving behavior that has been established as a crime at the substantive law level lacks the possibility of criminally prosecuting the perpetrator. The crime cannot be prosecuted, including the case where the time limit for prosecution has expired and the death of the criminal suspect or defendant; secondly, the drunk driving behavior that has already been established as a crime at the substantive law level lacks criminalization. Therefore, the most suitable procedural system for incriminating crimes by not committing minor crimes is the non-prosecution system in the review and prosecution stage.
     Sixth, the path of incriminating drunk driving at the level of criminal evidence law is the problem of flawed evidence. Specifically, if there is a problem of lack of evidentiary capacity or insufficient probative force in the evidence used to prove the criminal facts, then it should be treated as a crime in the procedure.
     Seventh, for specific drunk driving behaviors after committing a crime, they should be downgraded and regulated as administrative violations. From a judicial perspective, the principle of natural interpretation should be used to interpret the specific drunk driving behavior after a crime as the drunk driving behavior stipulated in Article 91, paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, so that the detention, Administrative penalties for fines. From the perspective of legislation, it is to restore the legislative provisions of the original "dual system" sanction model, and to establish and improve the triage procedure of minor crimes in the criminal procedure,, and a new model that fully meets the needs of special prevention of drunk driving.