摘要： 司法解释和司法个案认为可以援引但书规定作为个罪的出罪事由，但这种但书规定的司法适用状况与立法逻辑之间存在一定的矛盾。在我国入罪容易出罪难的特定背景下，但书规定的善意滥用为司法机关极为困难的出罪提供了某种法律支撑。然而，将但书规定作为出罪的总括性根据，存在着遮蔽通过对构成要件、违法性和有责性的犯罪成立条件进行法理解释而形成开放性出罪事由之弊。尤其是，滥用但书规定作为出罪根据的做法背后，隐藏着“出罪须有法律根据”这样一种思想，这是建立在对罪刑法定原则误解的基础之上的。因此，对于但书规定的功能和性质不能简单地肯定或者否定，而是应当作客观公正的评价。

关键词: 但书规定, 犯罪概念, 醉驾入罪

Abstract: Viewing from judicial interpretation and individual case，the proviso can provide a ground for exculpation in individual case，but the judicial application of the proviso contradicts the logic of legislation. Within the particular context in China in which it is easy to inculpate while difficult to exculpate, the bone fide abuse of the proviso provides a sort of legal support for the judicial organs to exculpate in a difficult Situation. However, taking the proviso as a general ground of exculpation will undermine the analysis structure of Tatbestand，Rechtswidrigkeit und Schuld and an open exculpation will come into being. In particular, behind the bone fide abuse of the proviso there is an underlying idea that “there must be legal grounds for exculpation”，which is based on the misunderstanding of the Principle of Legality. Therefore, we cannot simply affirm or negate the function and nature of the proviso. On the contrary，we should make an objective and fair assessment of Article 13.

Key words: Proviso, the Concept of Offense, Inculpation of Drunk Driving