不對稱上訴之研究

Tunghai University Institutional Repository > 法律學院 > 法律學系所 > 國科會研究報告 > Item 310901/24511

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://140.128.103.80:8080/handle/310901/24511

Title:	不對稱上訴之研究
Other Titles:	A Study on Asymmetrical Appeal
Authors:	陳運財 CHEN ,YUN-TSAI
Contributors:	東海大學法律學系行政院國家科學委員會
Date:	2012
Issue Date:	2014-03-07T07:15:53Z (UTC)
Abstract:	不對稱上訴之研究刑事上訴制度，最近在立法及實務運作上另有幾項值得觀察的變化。一是，2010 年5 月制定公布刑事妥速審判法，其中第8 條及第9 條規定限制檢察官對於無罪判決提起第三審上訴的管道。二是，對於幾件廣受社會矚目案件的無罪判決，例如拉法葉軍購弊案有關雷姓將官等案件、聯電疑涉大陸蘇州和艦背信等案件，檢察實務經會商研究後，罕見地決定不予上訴。立法者為何另立特別法，片面或不對稱的限制檢察官的上訴機會及上訴理由，其法理或政策基礎何在，是否源自於所謂一事不再理或落實檢察官實質舉證責任？如果要進一步貫徹此項立法意旨，則在立法論上，現行刑事訴訟法有關其他檢察官在訴訟程序中得聲明不服，例如提起二審上訴、為受判決人之不利益聲請再審等規範，是否亦應一併研議修正？妥速審判法第8 及第9 條規定將來是否應回歸刑事訴訟法上訴審的修正一併檢討等課題，多樣而複雜，有必要具體系性的進行綜合檢討。另一方面，檢察實務向來對於下級審法院所為之無罪判決，往往是鍥而不捨，再三聲明不服。如今，上開倍受關注的案件，係在符合何種標準或條件下而決定捨棄上訴？因不僅事關被告免受國家機關不合理追訴之地位安定性的保障，更牽動民眾對於檢察權公正行使的信賴問題，亦值得探究。在法理及政策等層面，必須檢討的課題或論點有：(1)刑事妥速審判法第８條及第９條不對稱地限制檢察官上訴第三審之規定，是否有違所謂的訟訴平等原則？(2) 現行刑事訴訟法對於檢察官及被告之上訴權，原則上以「當事人」一詞，置於同一平台上同等規範，是否妥適？(3)檢察官與被告兩者之間上訴權的性質、依據及內涵，有何不同？(4)上訴權之保障與上訴制度之目的、審級救濟的關係有何關聯？(5) 檢察官對於無罪判決之上訴，於判決確定前，是否亦受一事不再理或禁止雙重危險之規範？(6)當事人之上訴權、上訴審的審理範圍，是否與刑事訴訟結構改採部分當事人進行原則有一定的連動關係？(7)除了無罪判決外，對於其他下級審法院之判決，檢察官之上訴權是否亦應受到限制；被告對下級審法院所為之免訴或不受理等形式判決，得否主張無罪提起上訴？(8)限制檢察官上訴權的論據，是否可放射適用至自訴程序？(9)基於上訴權的尊重、正當程序之保障以及使被告能無畏懼的提起上訴的政策考量，是否應修法擴大被告上訴利益，尊重當事人之一部上訴權，並刪除不利益變更禁止原則的但書規定。由於本研究關涉之論點或課題多樣複雜，且須分別就法制及實務運作層面，進行比較法及實證研究，因此擬以兩年為期：第一年先就法理及制度進行不對稱上訴之比較法研究。此部分將參酌美、日兩國有關上訴權之性質、根據及上訴目的，探討檢察官與被告之間上訴權之差異。特別是，美、日兩國關於一事不再理效力或禁止雙重危險之規範，如何適用至檢察官對無罪判決聲明不服的問題。其次，第二年針對刑事妥速審判法第８條及第９條施行後的運作狀況、以及實務上檢察官捨棄上訴之原審無罪判決，進行判決理由的分析研究，再佐以對擔任案件之檢察官實施問卷調查或必要之訪談，瞭解其捨棄上訴的判斷標準或考量因素。最後，根據第一年的研究結果，並參酌我國檢察實務有關上訴權的運作的問題特徵，研議如何從檢察官之上訴應受權力節制、以及擴張保障被告上訴利益的觀點，探討刑事訴訟程序上訴之救濟管道的設計問題。 A Study on Asymmetrical Appeal In addition to the ongoing deliberations on how to amend the criminal appeal system, we have observed several remarkable changes in the legislative and practical operation. Firstly, Criminal Speed Trial Law section 8 and section 9 provide to limit the prosecutor’sappeal for an acquittal judge. Secondly, the prosecutor decided not to appeal for some acquittal cases that were well known by the public. The grounds for legislators to asymmetrically limit the power of prosecutors to appeal are said to be the implementation of the real burden of prosecutors and the adversary system. Then, based on the same grounds, it is necessary for us to deliberate whether Criminal Procedure Code should be also comprehensive reviewed on its appeal system and Criminal Speed Trial Law section 8 and section 9 provisions should be amended in the same time. On the other hand, the decision of the prosecutor's appealing for an acquittal is concerned not only by the defendant, but also by the people for the trust on the exercise of prosecution. Therefore, we are curiously to see the standards or conditions that the prosecutors decided not to appeal. From the point of the legal and policy dimensions, there are many issues to be examined. For instance, (1) Do Criminal Speed Trial Law section 8 and section 9 violate to the so-called principle of equality of the adversary proceeding? (2) Is it rational that prosecutors and defendants have the same right to appeal? (3) What's the difference between the prosecutor and the defendant the right of appeal on its basis or essence? (4) What is relationship between the right of appeal and the judicial relief purpose? (5) Does a prosecutor's appeal for a judgment of acquittal constitute double jeopardy? (6) How to see the right to appeal in the all structure of criminal procedure. (7) Can prosecutors appeal for other judgments other than acquittal; can defendants continue to argue a judgment of dismissing charges? (8) Can the argument of restricting prosecutor's appeal also be applied to private prosecution procedures? (9) Due to respect the defendant’s right to appeal and the guarantee of due process, should the appeal system be amended to expand the defendant's interests? This research plans to take two years to proceed: The first year will carry on the study of the right to appeal concerning its basis or essence, through comparing Japanese and American Constitution Articles. Particularly, the study will examine how to apply the double jeopardy clause to prosecutor's appeal against an acquittal judgment. Then, the second year will aim at the practice of Criminal Speed Trial Law section 8 and section 9, and will investigate domestic practical enforcement by questionnaire survey and interview research. The results will provide a much helpful and valuable viewpoint to improve the appeal system of criminal procedure.
Relation:	計畫編號：NSC100-2410-H029-023-MY2 研究期間：2012-08~ 2013-07
Appears in Collections:	[法律學系所] 國科會研究報告

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	414	View/Open
report-8.pdf		2761Kb	Adobe PDF	996	View/Open

Loading...