論我國刑事訴訟法參與人傳喚之若干疑義－兼論德國及日本法制對參與人「不自證己罪」之保障

Problems with Summons of Participants in Taiwans Criminal Procedure - A Comparison Between the German and Japanese Legal Systems

魏國晉(Wei, Kuo-Chin)

《軍法專刊》 68卷3期 (2022/06) Pp. 145-164

摘要

為保障沒收新制下可能受沒收影響之第三人，我國於2015年修法時正式於刑事訴訟法第455條之12以下引進「沒收特別程序」（或稱第三人參與沒收）新制，並賦予「參與人」獨特的訴訟身分。惟就「參與人」是否應受不自證己罪保障，其保障程度如何之問題，立法者顯然在法規與立法說明中體系不一，並體現在參與人雖有類似被告權利，卻在沒收事項中仍可能如同證人一般遭受「法院秩序罰」制裁之不當現象。對此，本文重新參酌作為修法基礎之德國刑事訴訟法規定，並觀察日本應急措施法之類似設計，確知前述問題乃源自於我國立法者對參與人受不自證己罪保障程度之混淆，以及分別參考實際上互不相容之德國與日本法制所引發之結果，並據此就現行法提出解釋與修正之建議。

關鍵字

法院秩序罰 ； 第三人參與沒收 ； 不自證己罪 ； 傳喚 ； 拒絕證言權

並列摘要

In order to protect third parties who may be affected by confiscation under the newly reformed Confiscation Act, a new framework of ＂Special Proceeding of Confiscation＂(or third-party participation in confiscation) was introduced under Article 455-12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2015, and a unique procedural status was granted to ＂participants＂. However, as to whether and how ＂participants＂ should be protected by self-incrimination, it is clear that the legislators have been inconsistent in their statutes and legislative descriptions, and this is reflected in the inappropriateness that participants may be subject to ＂Court Administrative Penalty＂ as witnesses in confiscation matters, even though they have similar rights to defendants. In this regard, this article reexamines the German law on which the amendment is based and observes the similar design of the Japanese law. It is clear that the aforementioned problem stems from the confusion of our legislators as to how participants should be protected by self-incrimination, resulting in the legislators making reference to the German and Japanese legal systems, which are practically incompatible with each other. In this regard, it is suggested that the current law should be interpreted and amended.

並列關鍵字

Court Administrative Penalty ； Third-Party Participation in Confiscation ； Self-Incrimination ； Summon ； the Right of Refusal to Testify

參考文獻

林裕順，〈偵查階段供述證據保全的法理探討－以刑訴法第一五八條之二第二項為中心〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，2007 年 10 月，第 149期，頁 101。

姚其聖，〈論公法上金錢給付義務之執行名義審查〉，《全國律師》，2013年 11 月，第 17 卷 11 期，頁 78-80。

洪家殷，〈行政罰法：第一講－行政罰之概念及種類〉，《月旦法學教室》，2009 年 10 月，第 84 期，頁 44-45、47、51。

林孟皇，〈新聞自由與媒體特權（上）－以新聞記者的刑事訴訟上特權為中心〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，2007 年 6 月，第 95 期，頁 26-27、28、32

郭吉助，〈論多次違反行政罰鍰處罰規定之適用－以自立晚報刊登小廣告被處罰鍰為例〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，2000 年 11 月，第 16 期，頁 14。