違背法令作為第三審上訴理由之研究－以刑事審判實務為中心

A Study on an Appeal to the Third Trial Instance for the Reason that the Judgment is Contrary to Law-With Focus on the Practice of Criminal Trial

李英勇(Ying-Yung Lee)

指導教授 ： 陳顯武

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.00511

摘要

刑事訴訟法第377條規定：「上訴於第三審法院，非以判決違背法令為理由，不得為之。」刑事訴訟法就上訴第三審之理由既設有限制，且第三審定位為法律審，何以實務上仍有案件經多次發回，久懸而未能確定，致引發各界批評。爰以刑事審判為中心，研究違背法令作為第三審上訴理由，及其所衍生之各項問題。
目前刑事訴訟第一審雖已採改良式當事人進行主義，但第二、三審訴訟制度並未配合修正，第二審仍採行重複第一審之覆審制，第三審並未採取嚴格之法律審，致生事實與法律問題難分，第二、三審職權界限欠明之情形。因之本研究首先探討我國審級制度之構造及第三審之特色，並說明審級制度之設計，三級三審制之實務運作，將來如何形塑金字塔型審級構造。及闡述事實審與法律審之意義，與其區別，復說明我國第三審之特色，得上訴之案件、上訴理由之限制、職權調查事項等範圍均與第二審有所不同。又刑事妥速審判法之部分條文業已施行，該法第8條限制檢察官、自訴人提起第三審上訴之權，其第9條規定符合該條情形，採取嚴格法律審，該法明文排除原刑事訴訟法關於上訴第三審若干規定之適用，其對於現行第三審上訴之影響，亦加研討。其次，從法位階之觀點考察判決違背法令，說明法位階之意涵，依序就憲法、法律、命令等層次及其他法則予以考察，並就法院審理案件時，關於違憲疑義之處理等相關問題加以研究。再者，就違背法令予類型化之分析，闡釋違背法令之意義及其類型，並就爭議問題提出探討。本研究既以刑事審判為中心，則就第三審之實務流程，及其裁判之情形，自應研析，期對實務之運作現況，提出改進意見。另就實務法規及功能加以檢討與因應，從實務與法制二個面向檢討，以求其改進之道。
經由本研究發現，對於刑事訴訟之司法行政、審判實務提出改進意見，並就司法院大法官審理案件法第5條、刑事訴訟法等法制方面提出修法建議。近程目標希望有助於第二審避免或減少判決違背法令情形之發生，使案件能妥適確定，達到司法節能之目的；中、遠程目標，則為修正相關法制，徹底解決案件久懸之問題，以符各界對於妥速審判之期待。

關鍵字

判決違背法令 ； 法位階 ； 審級制度 ； 事實審 ； 法律審 ； 第三審上訴理由 ； 違憲審查權

並列摘要

Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, "An appeal maynot be ade to a court of the third instance except for the reason that the judgment is contrary to law." Since the Code of Criminal Procedure has imposed restrictions on grounds of filing appeals to third trial instance and the third instance is designed to be a de jure trial, how can there be ever-pending cases as to which multiple remands are ordered, hence inducing criticisms from all circles? Therefore, the study is centered on criminal trials with focus on an appeal to the third trial instance for the reason that the judgment is contrary to law and the various issues resulting therefrom.

At present, although the court of first instance has adopted a reformatory adversarial system, the courts of second and third instances have not revised their practice accordingly. The court of second instance still adopts a review system that repeats what is conducted in the first instance whereas the court of third instance does not a strictly de jure trial, hence resulting in a situation where questions of facts and laws are intertwined and the authorities of courts of second and third instances ambiguous. Accordingly, this study will set out by firstly probing into the structure of the R.O.C.’s system of trial hierarchy and the characteristics of the third trial instance, and will then explain the design of the system of trial hierarchy, the trial practices of the three-level courts and trials, and how the pyramided trial hierarchy may be formed in the future. Moreover, the meanings of de facto trials and de jure trials and their distinctions will be elaborated. The study will also dwell on the differences between the appeals to the third trial instance and to the second trial instance by explaining their characteristics, limitations on the grounds for appeals, as well as the scope of ex officio investigations. Furthermore, certain provisions of the Criminal Speedy Trial Act have been put into force. Article 8 of said Act limits the right of both public and private prosecutors to make appeals to the third trial instance whereas Article 9 thereof provides for strict de jure trials if the conditions of said Article 8 are met. As said Act clearly excludes the application of certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the appeals to the third trial instance, the influence on the existing state of making appeals to the third trial instance will also be studied. Secondly, the concept of judgments contrary to law will be reviewed from the standpoint of the hierarchy of laws, with the implications of hierarchy of laws being elaborated, the Constitution, laws, orders and other legal principles being sequentially reviewed, as well as the treatment of issues of unconstitutionality by the trial courts being studied. In addition, the judgments contrary to law will be analyzed by their types, with the meanings and types of judgments contrary to law being elaborated and the issues associated therewith being studied. Since this study is centered on the criminal trials, the flow path of the third trial instance and the adjudicative process should be studied and analyzed so as to offer opinions for improvements as to the existing trial practices. Furthermore, the laws and practices and the functions thereof are reviewed, with critical review being done from both aspects of the practices and the legal framework so as to proffer means of improvements.

It is through the findings of this study that opinions for improvements as to the judicial administration and trial practices with respect to criminal procedure will be proposed, and that the recommendations for amendments to Article 5 of the Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act, Code of Criminal Procedure and other legal frameworks will be offered. The short-term objective is to help the court of second instance to avoid or reduce the situations where the judgments are contrary to law so as to reach adequate conclusion of the cases, hence achieving the goal of judicial economy. The mid- and long-term objective is to amend the relevant legal frameworks to thoroughly resolve the problem of ever-pending cases so that the expectations from all circles for fair and speedy trials will be met.

並列關鍵字

Judgment Contrary to Law ； Hierarchy of Laws ； System of Trial Hierarchy ； De Facto Trial ； De Jure Trial ； Ground for Appeal to Third Trial Instance ； Judicial Review over Unconstitutionality

參考文獻

呂潮澤，刑事被告上訴利益之論爭，刑事法雜誌，47卷5期，2003年10月，頁1-23。

林永謀，審級制度與刑事之上訴，法令月利，40卷3期，1989年3月，頁14-17。

俞儒勳、黃怡婷，刑事案件上訴最高法院重要因子之研究，中國統計學報，45卷3期，2007年9月，頁283-298。

陳顯武，論法學上規則與原則之區分－由非單調邏輯之觀點出發，臺大法學論叢，34卷1期，2005年1月，頁1－45。

楊與齡，司法院解釋與訴訟審判之關係，法令月刊，39卷2期，1988年2月1 日，頁3-6。