2020年一场突如其来的新型冠状病毒疫情打破了新春的祥和与平静，在广大群众和医护人员众志成城，齐心抗“疫”之时，却有一些“不和谐的声音”，不配合疫情防控、辱骂殴打医护人员甚至恶意传播病毒的行为时有发生。为了更好应对此次突发情况，重新树立良好的社会公共秩序，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、司法部于2月6日颁布《关于依法惩治妨害新型冠状病毒感染肺炎疫情防控违法犯罪的意见》（以下简称《意见》）来指导司法活动的展开。《意见》中关于涉新冠疫情类以危险方法危害公共安全罪的应用让传播疫情行为有法可依，震慑犯罪分子，维护公共安全。但在具体应用中也存在罪名不当、量刑过重的问题。基于此，本文为在实践中更好的适用该罪名，明确定罪标准，确定罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的界限，对《意见》中涉新冠疫情类以危险方法危害公共安全罪进行深度的剖析。论文除引言外，分如下四个部分论述：

第一部分为涉新冠疫情类以危险方法危害公共安全罪客观要件的理解。首先，分析“拒绝隔离治疗”和“隔离期未满擅自脱离隔离治疗”。明确“拒绝”不能仅表现在言语上，还要有拒绝的行为，“拒绝”的重点在于拒绝“隔离”而不是“治疗”；“隔离”必须具有医疗性质；明确隔离期限和脱离隔离治疗的标准，经医生同意后的“脱离”，不属于“擅自脱离”。其次，分析“进入公共场所和公共交通工具”。总结理论学界对认定“公共场所”的理论争议，结合新冠疫情的现实情况，提出公共场所应以“多数”为核心且性质不因时间、环境的变化而改变；不能只将大、中型出租车认定为“公共交通工具”，还要考虑网约车、共享单车和共享汽车，并结合乘坐人和驾驶者是确诊病人、病原携带者还是疑似病人具体分析；对“进入”行为从程度、时间和空间上进行探讨。最后，“造成新型冠状病毒传播”没有人数要求，其规定的合理性进行值得商榷。

第二部分为涉新冠疫情类以危险方法危害公共安全罪主体要件的界定。列举确诊病人、病原体携带者和疑似病人的医学判断标准和诊断程序，明确其属于医学概念，刑法不能随意解释，要构成涉新冠疫情类以危险方法危害公共安全罪必须在实施犯罪行为前就被认定为确诊病人、病原体携带者和疑似病人。“复阳”病例在被重新确诊前不具有“确诊病例”的身份。可以将“临床病例”视为“疑似病例”。

第三部分为涉新冠疫情类以危险方法危害公共安全罪主观要件的认定。首先，是对主观“明知”的认定。根据确诊病人、病原携带者和疑似病人身份的不同，分别从对危险行为内容的了解及对危害后果的预测可能性，这两方面把握其认知情况。其次，是对意志态度的判断。将确诊病人、病原携带者和疑似病人分别从有无采取防护措施和是否主动与不特定人群接触，这两方面进行主观意志判断。

第四部分为涉新冠疫情类以危险方法危害公共安全罪的相关界限。首先，是与非罪行为的界限。在不符合涉新冠疫情类以危险方法危害公共安全罪规定的构成条件和符合《刑法》第13条“但书”的“情节显著轻微、危害不大”的情况下，不成立涉新冠疫情类以危险方法危害公共安全罪。其次，与妨害传染病防治罪的界限。从侵害法益、主体范围及主观要件进行分析。最后，与妨害公务罪的界限。从行为方式和实施暴力的主体进行分析。

In 2020, a sudden COVID-19 broke the peace and serenity of the new year. When the masses and medical staff joined hands and were against the epidemic, they had some "discordant voices", which did not match the epidemic prevention and control, abuse and beat the doctors and nurses, and even spread the disease. In order to better cope with this unexpected situation and re-establish good social and public order, the Supreme People's court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of public security and the Ministry of justice promulgated the "opinions on punishing the illegal epidemic prevention and control of New Coronavirus infection in accordance with the law" in February 6th (hereinafter referred to as "opinions") to guide the launching of judicial activities. The application of the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means in the opinions provides a legal basis for the spread of epidemic situation, deterres criminals and maintains public security. But in the specific application, there are also the problems of improper accusation and excessive sentencing. Based on this, in order to better apply the accusation in practice, clarify the standard of conviction, determine the boundary between crime and non crime, this crime and that crime, conduct in-depth analysis of COVID-19's dangerous crime of endangering public safety. Besides the introduction, the paper is divided into four parts

The first part is about the understanding of the objective elements of COVID-19's crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means. First of all, analyze "refuse isolation treatment" and "leave isolation treatment before the end of the isolation period". It is clear that "Refusal" can not only be expressed in words, but also in the act of refusal. The focus of refusal is to refuse "isolation" rather than "treatment"“ "Isolation" must have medical nature; The time limit of isolation and the standard of isolation treatment should be specified. The separation with the consent of doctors does not belong to "unauthorized separation". Secondly, it analyzes "access to public places and public transport". This paper summarizes the theoretical disputes on the identification of "public places" in theoretical circles. Combined with the actual situation of COVID-19, it is put forward that the identification of public places should be centered on "majority" and the nature does not change due to changes in time and environment. We should not only identify large and medium-sized taxis as "public transport vehicles", but also consider online car hailing, bike sharing and car sharing, and analyze whether the passengers and drivers are confirmed patients, pathogen carriers or suspected patients; This paper discusses the behavior of "entering" from the aspects of degree, time and space. Finally, there is no requirement for "New Coronavirus communication", and the reasonableness of its provisions is open to question.

The second part is about the definition of the main elements of the crime of endangering public safety by COVID-19. Enumerating the medical judgment standard and diagnostic procedure of the confirmed patient, pathogen carrier and suspect patient, clearly it belongs to the medical concept, the criminal law can not be explained at will, and it must constitute the dangerous crime of endangering public safety involving the COVID-19 class. It must be identified as a confirmed patient, a pathogen carrier and a suspected patient before committing a crime. The case of "Fuyang" does not have the identity of "confirmed case" before being re diagnosed. "Clinical cases" can be regarded as "suspected cases".

The third part is about the cognizance of the subjective elements of COVID-19's crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means. First of all, it is the identification of subjective "knowing". According to the different identities of confirmed patients, pathogen carriers and suspected patients, we can grasp their cognition from the understanding of the content of dangerous behavior and the possibility of predicting the harmful consequences. Secondly, the judgment of will attitude. The diagnosed patients, pathogen carriers and suspected patients were judged from the subjective will to take protective measures and contact with non-specific people.

The fourth part is about the relevant boundaries of COVID-19's crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means. First of all, it is the boundary between criminal behavior and non criminal behavior. In the case of failing to comply with the conditions stipulated by COVID-19 for the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous methods and in accordance with the thirteenth proviso of the criminal law, "the circumstances are slight and not harmful," the crime of involving COVID-19 in endangering public security in a dangerous way is not established. Secondly, the boundary of the crime of interfering with the prevention and control of infectious diseases. From the infringement of legal interests, subject scope and subjective elements. Finally, the boundary between the crime and the crime of impairing public service. From the behavior and the main body of violence.