超法規補強法則之研究

最高法院依據其實務經驗，認為對立性證人、目的性證人、脆弱性證人以及特殊性證人之供述，各有其特殊因素而相較於一般證人之供述更為不可信，必須透過其他證據之補強以確保事實認定之真實性，形成超法規補強法則。本文透過分析我國法院採用超法規補強法則之判決，確認最高法院認為此等供述類型必須受到補強之原因，以及實務上經常採用作為補強證據之證據類型。本文參酌心理學之相關研究以及外國實務經驗之文獻，認為前述四種類型之證人確實具備影響其供述可信性之特殊性格，為一般證人所無。對立性證人由於證人本身之記憶缺陷與其強烈之訴追目的交互作用，其供述對於事實認定具有較大之錯誤風險；目的性證人作出供述以獲得刑罰減免優惠之目的，應併同證人與偵查機關之緊密關係以及操縱動機進行觀察，法定之刑罰優惠將成為證人栽贓嫁禍於被告之誘因，其作成之損人利己供述具有較高之虛偽風險；於脆弱性證人中，年齡層較低之幼童確實具有較高之可能性受到他人暗示誘導影響，且我國對於幼童之陳述並未有一個標準化之詢問程序，其受到誘導之可能性仍然存在，對於此等供述必須為特殊處理；特殊性證人亦經常係目的性證人，其於個人資料受到封存保護之前提下，同時具有獲得刑罰優惠之目的而作出供述，其可信性之判斷應更為謹慎。於前述之補強法則外，大法官於司法院釋字第789號解釋，參酌歐洲人權法院之判決意見，針對未受到被告對質詰問之被害人供述，要求不得作為有罪判決之唯一或主要依據。本文贊同文獻上提出之見解認為，除了性侵害案件被害人之警詢筆錄以外，於其他類型之證詞同樣欠缺真實性擔保程序之情形下，應採用補強法則以彌補被告程序上之不利益。於補強證據之適格部分，不應為過於狹隘之認定，原則上得以協助法院認定犯罪之事實，而與犯罪構成要件事實具有相當之關連性者，皆得以作為補強證據。於補強範圍之部分，本文立於罪體說之基礎上，認為犯罪主體面與犯罪客觀面皆為犯罪之客觀事實而同樣具有補強之必要，倘若僅針對犯罪之客觀面為補強，仍無法有效避免錯誤之有罪判決。於補強程度之部分，本文認為由於超法規補強法則所涵蓋之供述類型不同於被告自白而不具有避免偏重供述證據之特殊考量，應採取認定較為寬鬆之相對說，而補強之程度是否確實達成要求，將委諸於法院之自由心證判斷。最後，本文期望能透過超法規補強法則適用標準之建立，對於經驗法則之內涵予以部分地充實，並作為實務上個案法院於事實認定之參考指引，以避免錯誤之有罪判決與冤案再度發生。

關鍵字

超法規補強法則；自由心證；經驗法則；事實認定；證據法則；供述證據；對質詰問

並列摘要

Based on its practical experience, the Supreme Court has held that testimonies of adversarial witnesses, purposive witnesses, vulnerable witnesses, and special witnesses are each more unreliable than testimonies of ordinary witnesses due to their special characteristics, and must be corroborated by other evidence to ensure the truthfulness of fact findings. In this research, we analyze the decisions of our courts that have adopted the extralegal corroboration rule and identify the reasons why the Supreme Court has held that these types of testimonies must be corroborated, and the types of evidence that are often used as corroboration in practice. In this research, we consider the relevant psychological studies and the papers on foreign practical experience, and conclude that the four types of witnesses mentioned above do have special characteristics that affect the credibility of their testimonies, which are not found in ordinary witnesses. Adversarial witnesses' testimonies have a greater risk of error in fact findings due to the interaction of the witness' own memory deficiencies and his or her strong prosecutorial intent. The purpose of a purposeful witness making a testimony for the sake of obtaining a penalty reduction should be observed in conjunction with the close relationship between the witness and the investigating agency and the motive of manipulation, and the statutory penalty reduction will become an incentive for the witness to frame the defendant, and the self-serving testimony made by the witness will have a higher risk of falsification. Among the vulnerable witnesses, children in the younger age group do have a higher likelihood of being influenced by implied inducements, and since there is no standardized questioning procedure for the testimonies of young children in Taiwan, the possibility of their being induced still exists, and such testimonies must be treated as special. Special witnesses are often purposeful witnesses who make testimonies for the purpose of obtaining a favorable sentence while their personal information is being protected under seal, and their credibility should be judged more carefully. In addition to the aforementioned extralegal corroboration rule, the Constitutional Court explained in Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 789 that, in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, a victim's statement that is not cross-examined by the defendant is not required to be the sole or decisive basis for a guilty verdict. This research paper agrees with the suggestion in the papers that, in addition to the victim's police statement in sexual assault cases, the corroboration rule should be applied to compensate for the procedural disadvantages of the defendant in cases where other types of testimony are also lacking in the truthfulness guarantee procedure. In principle, any evidence that can assist the court in determining the facts of the crime and that has a substantial relevance to the facts of the constituent elements of the crime can be used as corroborative evidence. In the part of the scope of corroboration, based on the basis of the corpus delicti doctrine, this research believes that both the identity of the offender and the objective side of the crime are the objective facts of the crime and are equally necessary for corroboration. If only the objective side of the crime is corroborated, it is still not effective to avoid wrongful conviction. In terms of the degree of corroboration, this research argues that because the type of testimonies covered by the extralegal corroboration rule is different from the defendant's confession and does not have the special consideration of avoiding bias in favor of confession evidence, a more lenient relative opinion should be adopted, and whether the degree of corroboration actually meets the requirement will be left to the court's free evaluation of evidence. As a final point, this research hopes to enrich the content of the rule of thumb through the establishment of a standard for the application of the extralegal corroboration rule, and to serve as a reference guide for case courts in fact finding process in order to avoid the reoccurrence of wrongful convictions and innocent cases.

並列關鍵字

the Extralegal Corroboration Rule ； Free Evaluation of Evidence ； the Rule of Thumb ； Fact Findings ； Rules of Evidence ； Evidence of Testimonies ； Confrontation and Examination