摘要
由於現今科技發達，犯罪手法不斷翻新，因此監聽成為犯罪偵查所仰賴之重要手段，而在合法監聽過程中往往會偶然獲取到另案之訊息資料，此為實施監聽過程中所無法避免之特殊狀況，基於監聽制度本身所具備之內在衝突，也就是對於基本人權之嚴重侵害及偵查手段之便利行使間之權衡取捨，連帶影響到另案監聽證據合法適用範圍之認定，因為，如果嚴格界定另案監聽之合法性，將不利於打擊犯罪，相反地，如果從寬界定其合法性，將有害於人權保障，因此，如何合理界定另案監聽之合法性及其證據資料之適用範圍，成為研究監聽制度之重要課題，亦為本文之研究重心。 故而，本文試著從監聽之本質出發，介紹監聽所涉及之憲法基本人權，及司法院釋字第631號所揭示與監聽有關之憲法原則；再介紹另案監聽之性質、類型及限制，與另案監聽證據在刑事實務之運作，復藉由各國有關通訊監察制度之規範，從中解析各國對於另案監聽所得證據資料之證據認定，而後引申出我國學界對於另案監聽證據資料之理論基礎，最後，以近年我國實務對於另案監聽證據之裁判見解為例，予以歸納分析，期望透過本文之研究，對於另案監聽在現行法制所產生之問題加以釐清，並試著提出對於另案監聽所得證據資料之合理判斷，以供作未來實務裁判之參考依據。
並列摘要
Due to the rapid development of technology and booming innovated crime techniques nowadays, monitoring becomes an important and dependable means of criminal investigation. However, it is inevitable to accidently obtain evidence of another crime in a legitimate monitoring. The conflicts and balance between serious invasion of human rights and convenient execution of investigation methods regarding the nature of monitoring have caused impact on the legality and application of derivative monitoring evidence. Stringent definition on the legality of derivative monitoring evidence retards criminal investigation; on the other hand, lenient definition on the legality of derivative monitoring evidence invades human rights. Accordingly, the focus of the essay falls on reasonable definition on the legality of derivative monitoring evidence as well as the applicable scope of such evidence information, which are also important issues in the study of monitoring mechanism. The essay begins with the nature of monitoring by introducing the basic constitutional human rights involve with monitoring and the Constitution Principles involve with monitoring announced by J.Y. Interpretation No. 631 of Judicial Yuan. Then, the introduction of the characters, categories, restrictions, and the application of derivative monitoring evidence in the criminal practice would be followed. Furthermore, the essay will review and analyze the cognizance of derivative monitoring evidence of other countries based on their specific communication surveillance systems and regulations; the theory basis on derivative monitoring evidence information of R.O.C. academic community is afterwards presented. Lastly, the essay would analyze and conclude the precedents regarding derivative monitoring evidence in R.O.C. courts. The essay aims not only to clarify issues on derivative monitoring incurred in the current statutes but also demonstrate appropriate judgments and reasoning on derivate monitoring evidence for reference to courts in the future.
參考文獻
黃東熊．吳景芳著，《刑事訴訟法論》，台北：三民，2002年9月。
黃朝義著，《刑事訴訟法，證據篇》，台北：元照，2002年11月。
黃朝義著，《刑事訴訟法，制度篇》，台北：元照，2002年11月。
連孟琦，《論監聽之證據使用禁止》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2004年。
王士帆；李瑞敏著，〈監聽陷阱案之相關法律問題（上）--從我國最高法院九三年度臺上字第二九四九號判決談起〉，《臺灣本土法學雜誌》第70期，2005年5月，頁25-36。