摘要
最高法院76年臺上字4986號判例，引用未達「超越合理懷疑」的概念，仍得作爲無罪判決。似乎認爲「超越合理懷疑」時，原則上應爲有罪判決。此源自於英美法之「超越合理懷疑」概念，職此之故，對英美法的適用情形有必要清楚瞭解，方可應用在我國實務。 刑事證據法則，乃是指「證據」與「待證事項」的推論關係。而刑事訴訟證據法的基本觀念與認知，爲刑事訴訟法的重點。至於引用「懷疑」之概念，得否作爲「有罪判決」之基礎，與我國法的「無罪推定原則」，是否有牴觸應予探討。而「有合理之懷疑」，乃是「不確定法律概念」，如以其作爲有罪判決之基礎，將破壞刑事訴訟法第154條之精神。 而引用「有合理之懷疑」作爲論據後，即以「懷疑」的「高低度」之「確信」作爲有罪與否的標準。此種論據，乃是以「歸納法」作爲基礎，而應有所質疑。本文對於美國法的「優勢證據」、「簡明證明」、「超越合理懷疑」之量差關係予以探討及批判。 證據法則的認知判斷方法，應是邏輯應用型態。而「犯罪嫌疑」概念，其並不是所有刑事程序的核心概念，而應只是「刑事偵查程序的核心概念」，其是一種「歸納」的過程。至於法院不能證明被告有罪者，即應予以無罪判決，並不如同刑事偵查程序，但法院若是以刑事偵查的「犯罪嫌疑概念」作爲有罪與否的標準，顯有問題，對此，應有觀念的釐清與作法的轉變。
並列摘要
The R.O.C Supreme Court legal precedent No. 4986, 1987, adapted the concept that if it is not reaching ”beyond a reasonable doubt”, innocent judgments can still be tolerated. It seems like when ”beyond a reasonable doubt” takes place, it is the rule to execute a guilty judgment. It comes from the idea of US law ”beyond a reasonable doubt”, therefore it is necessary to have a complete understanding to apply it in our country. The Principle of Criminal Evidence is referred to the ratiocination of ”the evidence” and ”factum probandum”. The ”basic idea” and the ”cognition” of the Principle of Criminal Evidence are the key points to the Law of Criminal Procedures. As for the ”doubt” to be the foundation of guilty judgment, whether it conflicts ”the Principle of Presumption” with our law practices, should be discussed. However, ”reasonable doubt” is an indefinite legal concept, if used as the foundation of granting guilty decision, will destroy the spirit of article 154 of the Law of Criminal Procedure. Using ”reasonable doubt” as the argument source and the ”volume of suspicion” to sustain the belief that whether one is guilty. Such theory is based on the method of ”induction”, which has room of critical. Therefore, this article is to discuss and criticize the US Law Concepts: ”preponderant evidence”, ”clear and convincing evidence”, ”beyond a reasonable doubt”, on their volume differences. The method of judgment and cognition of Evidence Rule should be based on the logical application format. The ”crime suspect” is not the entire core concept of penal procedure law, it should only be ”the core concept of criminal investigation procedure”, and it is just one of the ”induction” process. As for the court, if they cannot prove the defendant guilty, then the innocent judgment must be granted, because it is not similar to the Prosecutor's investigation. But if the court take ”the crime suspicion concept” of criminal investigation as the standard of guilty judgment, it is obviously critical. Thus, we should rethink the US Law Concepts and transform our methods.