交通違規舉發關係人民權益甚鉅，係行政重要作用，另所舉發時，相對人係以故意或過失之責任條件而違反行為或所處責任能力狀態，是否構成處罰要件，此關係行政法上責任原則理論，故本文首先針對交通違規之舉發與責任原則理論，予以探討論述，並據此評析法院判決之案例，以此印證實務運作。針對交通違規之舉發，論述包括交通舉發執法之概說、交通舉發之多階段程序與交通違規之正確責任人。另在責任原則理論方面，在此論述包含責任原則之概念、責任條件、推定過失之責任與責任能力。基於上述理論，評析本文闖紅燈判決之案例，法院撤銷原處分並非否定警察所為之「逕行舉發」，而係認為被告就原告有原處分所認定違規情節之舉證尚有未足，而無從證明原告甲確有闖紅燈之違規情事。然而針對此，現行科學儀器日益發達，如攝影照相等，因此若依據科學證據原則，人民要求足夠證據已屬當然，而非僅憑警察觀察即逕行舉發，固未來仍有探究空間。而處罰闖紅燈之行為並沒有區分故意或過失，然而實際情況卻會有「過失」行為存在，在此法院並無針對故意或過失闖紅燈予以考量分析，然未來在修正交通法規時，對於重大交通違規事件，應可考量區別故意或過失之違規處罰。

Reporting of traffic violations has great influence on people’s rights, and it is an important action of administration as well. The issue whether the counterpart who intentionally or negligently violates behavior or the state of capability that he/she is in deserves punishments concerns the theory of reliability principle on the Administrative Law. Therefore, this article will first shed light on the expositions and the theory of responsibility principle on traffic violations. Moreover, comments are made on the cases with the judgment of court to verify the actual practice. Discussion also includes the introduction of enforcement of traffic violation dispositions, multi-stage process of traffic violation disposition, and the proper responsible person of traffic violation. As for the theory of responsibility principle, discussions are made regarding the concept of responsibility principle, the condition of responsibility, responsibility of assumed faults. According to the above theory, this paper comments on the court judgments on the cases of running through the red lights. The court revokes disciplinary sanction, which is not considered rejecting the directed accusation from the policemen, but insufficient evidence is offered to prove the defendant guilty. Therefore, it will be a vague situation between whether the defendant had run through the red lights or not. However, in view of this problem, nowadays the technical up-to-date equipments are more and more accessible to people, such as cameras for filming or pictures. Therefore, according to the principle of scientific evidence, it has become common that people require enough evidence for the accusation, instead of relying on policemen’s duty of directed accusation. This issue has more aspects and problems for us to probe into in the future. There’s no distinction between intention and negligence; however, in reality the “negligent” behavior does exist. And in this case, the court does not consider the situation which the responsible person runs through the red lights intentionally or negligently. In view of this, we could consider making a distinction in the traffic violation punishments between intention and negligence to modify the traffic law in the future.