論訴訟經濟對被告訴訟權之影響－以刑事簡易程序為中心

刑事程序之基本核心內容莫過於是追訴犯罪、保障人權與發現真實，並作出正確之裁判以實現司法之公平正義，同時亦應符合憲法之正當法律程序與訴訟權之保障。然而在追求上述核心價值的同時，仍應注意避免耗費過多之司法資源，尤其於我國將改良式當事人進行主義以及交互詰問制度納入刑事訴訟程序後，加上科技進步、社會多元發展下，難以期待於有限之司法資源下，法院仍就得以處理日益繁重且複雜之刑事案件。據此，我國於「訴訟經濟」之考量下，制定了簡易型訴訟程序制度，包含協商程序、簡化訴訟程序之簡易判決程序，以及審判程序簡化之簡式程序三種制度。期盼透過不同類型、案情繁易或罪行輕重等不同程度之案件予以分流案件，將具有「明確性」、「輕微性」之案件以簡捷之「簡易型訴訟程序」取代嚴謹之通常審判程序，以紓解龐大之訴訟案源，使司法機關具有喘息之空間，同時也能讓有限之司法資源得以合理分配。於三種簡易訴訟程序中，其共通點均是以被告自白為前提，並於審判程序中減輕對證據調查之方式與要求、簡化判決書之製作，以及限制被告之救濟權以達到簡化訴訟程序之目的。以實務上最被廣為使用之簡易判決程序來說，法院僅須就書面資料為審理判決，其無異已使被告自動放棄其重要的對質詰問權，此外，於事後又無給予其完善的救濟方式，而有違反憲法之訴訟權保障、正當法律程序及聽審請求權之疑。儘管於追求訴訟經濟之過程中，因程序之簡化或多或少會犧牲被告之權益，惟簡易型程序追根究底而言仍是屬於刑事訴訟制度之一種程序，是以，於立法設計上仍應符合基本原理原則以及憲法訴訟權之要求。因此，本文欲藉由「保障被告之權利」與兼具「訴訟經濟」為出發點，透過介紹我國三種簡易型訴訟程序，並就其中之「簡易判決程序」為研究與討論之重點，就我國歷年實務之相關判決進行回顧與整理，並輔以學理見解綜合分析，及參酌德國「處刑命令」之立法，嘗試解決現今簡易型訴訟程序適用上之疑義，並提出具可能性之修法方向，供未來立法參考。

關鍵字

簡易判決程序；訴訟經濟；訴訟權；處刑命令；訴訟程序

並列摘要

The basic core of Criminal Procedure Law is to prosecute, protect human rights, and find out the truth, and to make correct decisions to achieve judicial justice and fairness, while also complying with the constitutional due process of law and the protection of the right to litigation. However, while pursuing the above core values, special consideration needs to be taken to avoid expending excessive judicial resources, especially after the incorporation of reformatory adversarial system of justice and cross-examination system into Criminal Procedure Law in the Republic of China. With the advances in technology and the development of social pluralism, it is difficult to expect the courts to handle increasingly heavy and complex criminal cases with limited judicial resources. Accordingly, under the consideration of "litigation economy," a simplified procedural system has been developed, which includes three types of systems, namely, Summary Procedure, Summary Trial Procedure, and Plea Bargaining. It is expected that via the classification of cases of different types, complexity, or severity, cases of "clarity" and "minority" will adopt "summary litigation proceedings" to replace regular judiciary proceeding in order to relieve the huge number of lawsuits and give the judiciary room to breathe, while allowing the limited judicial resources to be reasonably allocated. The common premises of the three summary proceedings are that the defendant's confession is the prerequisite, and the manner as well as requirements of the evidentiary investigation are reduced, the preparation of the judgment is simplified, and the defendant's right of relief is limited in order to achieve the goal of simplifying the litigation process. Based on the most widely used summary procedure in practice, the court is required to adjudicate only on written information, which is equivalent to an automatic waiver of the defendant's important right of confrontation. In addition, the absence of a perfect remedy after the fact violates the constitutional right to litigation, due process of law, and the right to a hearing. Although in the process of pursuing litigation economy, the rights of the defendant may be sacrificed to a greater or lesser extent due to the simplification of procedures, summary proceedings are still, in the final analysis, part of the criminal procedure system, and therefore,they should still comply with the basic principles and requirements of the constitutional right to litigation in the legislative design. Thus, this article takes "protection of defendant's rights" and "litigation economy" as the basis to introduce the three types of summary proceedings in the Republic of China. The article also focuses on the "summary procedure" among them through reviewing and organizing related verdicts of past practices in the Republic of China, being supplemented by a comprehensive analysis of theoretical insights, and referring to the German legislation on "Strafbefehl” to resolve the doubts about the application of summary proceedings and propose a possible direction of legislative amendment for future reference.