我國交付審判制度之研究

The Research on the System of Setting for Trial in Our Nation

李慶隆(Ching-Lung Li)

指導教授 ： 蔡墩銘

共同指導教授 ： 曾淑瑜 ； 張麗卿

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2006.01435

摘要

中文摘要
本論文乃因筆者所經辦的數聲請交付審判之案件均遭駁回，然當事人卻仍然深表不服之情況下，始引起筆者想要探討此制度之堂奧所在，包括此制度之立法經過、外國立法例及實務運作，我國實務之運作成效等等，經研究結果讓筆者對當事人前揭不服已獲釋然，證實他山之石可以攻錯。本論文共分八章，第一章主要在闡明本論文之研究動機、研究目的、研究途徑、研究方法、範圍等作一概略之介紹。於第二章係以交付審判制度之意義、理論基礎及程序功能為論述之重點。除說明交付審判之基本概念外，並就交付審判制度之法律性質，提出綜合德、日及我國學說上之爭論，另從憲法上訴訟權保障暨基於人性尊嚴之原則等觀點，探討交付審判制度之理論基礎何在。最後再探究交付審判制度之程序功能，期對交付審判制度有初步之認識。其次在第三章係論述我國交付審判制度立法之經過，包含當初之立法背景，乃因社會上普遍對司法之信任度長期不彰，民間要求司法改革之呼聲不斷，始有全國司法改革會議之召開，尤其就檢察官濫用或誤用不起訴職權之外部監督機制，本來建議引進日本檢察審查會制度，詎在全國司法改革會議上作最後之表決時竟未達成共識，嗣法務部改提出引進德、日之法院審查制，立法院也在不久三讀通過，改採用日本準起訴及德國強制起訴制度之立法例，通過設立交付審判制度，在本章有介紹當初整個立法過程之始末。另外於第四章係基於他山之石可以攻錯之信念，由於我國乃折衷德、日立法例，以比較法之觀點，對我國交付審判制度所師法之德、日之相關法制加以介紹，並介紹美國大陪審團制度及日本檢察審查會制度，經研究結果發現我國的確選擇適合我國國情而折衷德、日之法制。在第五章係論述我國交付審判制度之實務運作體系。因交付審判制度係我國新設之制度，有必要對實務如何運作加以介紹。在介紹過程即可發現現行實務運作所衍生之問題何在，而目前我國實務之運作均以司法院九十一年二月七日所召開之全國各級法院首長司法業務座談會之決議及九十一年四月二十五日台灣高等法院刑事庭長會議之決議，暨法務部九十一年三月七日九十一年度法檢字第九一０八００九四九號函之附件「檢察機關因應刑事訴訟法部分條文修正辦理事項參考原則」之內容為依據，目前整個聲請交付審判制度之運作尚稱正常順利。最重要者乃第六章，從實務面之角度切入，蒐集全國二十一個地方法院之交付審判裁定，探究其具體運作之結果，全面作綜合統計分析，結果在全國三０五二件聲請案中共有十九件裁准交付審判，佔0.62%，然與德國、日本之實務上之運作成效作比較，德、日實務運作核准率亦不高。再於第七章乃闡明我國現行交付審判制度規定學理上之缺失及實務運作上之困境，共提出十五個亟待檢討之問題，並與德、日立法例作比較法上之觀察。最後第八章乃歸納有關交付審判制度運作之利弊所在，並試圖提出未來修法時之可能對策，讓被害人之尊嚴及權益得以在刑事訴訟程序中獲得充分之尊重及保護，並藉此制度提昇我國被害人於刑事訴訟上之地位，也可以透過此制度使犯罪者無從僥倖，讓國家能公正的行使刑罰權，確實懲罰破壞社會秩序者。
關鍵詞：
法院審查制、強制起訴、準起訴、大陪審團、檢察審查會、人性尊嚴、假性財產犯罪。

關鍵字

法院審查制、強制起訴、準起訴、大陪審團、檢察審查會、人性尊嚴、假性財產犯罪。

並列摘要

English Summary

The motivation of writing this thesis is because many appealing cases for setting for trial managed by the writer are rejected. However, the persons involved are not convinced. This arouses the writer to probe into the depths of this system, including the process of its legislation, and the law-making and practical operation in foreign cases and the effect of domestic operation. As the research turns out, the persons who are not convinced have accepted it utterly. This proves that “The stones of those hills may be used to polish gems”. The thesis is divided into eight chapters. The first chapter mainly elucidates and summarizes the motive, goal, ways, method and range of the thesis’ research. In Chapter Two, the focus is put on the significance of setting for trial, theoretical basis, and function of procedures. Besides explaining the basic concept of setting for trial, an argument integrated by Germany, Japan and our theory is brought forth based on the legal trait for the system of setting for trial. In addition, a lawsuit in terms of constitution to defend the dignity of humanity serves as a perspective to explore the ground of theory of setting for trial. Then it further discusses the function of procedures of setting for trial in the hope to familiarize us with it. Next in Chapter Three, it discusses the legislative process of our nation’s setting for trial, including the legislative background at an initial stage—that is, our society does not have a long-term trust for justice in general; a civil call for reform in justice is continuous, resulting in the convention of a national meeting for reforming justice. This especially refers to the prosecutors’ abuse of uncharged staff’s rights to outer supervisory mechanism. Originally, it is suggested that Japan’s Examining Committee be introduced. However, the consensus fails to be reached in the final decision of National conference for reforming justice, followed by the Ministry of Justice’s offering to usher in the examining system from the courts of Germany and Japan. The Legislative Yuan passes it by Three Reading shortly after it, and changes to adopt Japan’s quasi-institution of a public action as well as Germany’s compulsory prosecution system. It also passes establishing a system for setting for trial. In the chapter, there is an introduction for the initial and final stage of the whole legislative process at that time. Moreover, in Chapter Four, which is based on the belief “The stones of those hills may be used to polish gems”, a further introduction is made from a comparison perspective regarding our emulation of Japan and Germany’s setting for trial. And it also introduces U.S. Grand Jury and Japan’s Examining Committee. As the research turns out, our nation indeed adopts a system that is appropriate to our country. Chapter Five discusses the practical working of this system in our nation. Because setting for trial is our new system, it is necessary to introduce its operation further. During our discussion, we may find out the problem of its operation. Currently, our nation’s operation is based on Judicial Yuan’s Meeting on February 7 , 2002 for the nationwide court’s chief and Forum on judicial business, as well as Taiwan’s Superior Court’s criminal chief judge’s decision on April 25, 2002, and also Ministry of Justice’s No. 910800949 attached letter of March 7, 2002—A reference principle for prosecutors’ institution to manage affairs corresponding to the modification of partial criminal litigation act. Currently, the entire operation of setting for trial goes smoothly. The most important part is Chapter Six, whose point of view is from the aspect of practical operation. And it amasses the information about the decision of setting for trial from twenty-one local courts nationwide. This chapter will explore the effect of its concrete operation and analyze it synthetically with statistics. The analysis turns out that there are 19 cases out of 3052 appealing cases nationwide that are allowed for setting for trial, which takes up 0.62 percentage. However, compared to the effect of Germany and Japan’s practical operation, they do not have a high ratifying rate in practical operation. Furthermore, in Chapter Seven, the thesis elaborates on the theoretical deficiency in our current system of setting for trial and our nation’s predicament in practical operation. There are fifteen questions raised in total that are desperate to be examined and compared with the instances of lawmaking in Germany and Japan for comparative observation. Finally, Chpater Eight summarizes the advantages and disadvantages about the system of setting for trial. It attempts to offer a possible strategy for modifying law in the future, allowing the victims’ dignity and benefits to be fully respected and protected during a criminal litigation as well as enhancing their status in criminal lawsuit. This may prevent those perpetrators from escaping luckily and allow the country to fairly execute its penal rights by punishing those who break our social order.
Key Words:
Court’s Examining System, Compulsory Prosecution, Quasi-institution of a public action, Grand Jury, Examination Committee, Human Dignity, Fake Property Crime.

並列關鍵字

Court’s Examining System, Compulsory Prosecution, Quasi-institution of a public action, Grand Jury, Examination Committee, Human Dignity, Fake Property Crime.

參考文獻

9.古嘉諄、顧立雄，〈刑事訴訟法新修正後律師角色的調適〉，台北:律師雜誌，2003年7月。

11.朱石炎，〈改進再議程序芻議〉，台北:法令月刊，第25卷第8期。

12.朱石炎，〈檢察官裁量不起訴之研究〉，台北:法令月刊，第42卷第5期，1999年5月。

56.林永謀，〈司法院大法官會議釋字第384號解釋協同意見書〉，台北:司法院大法官解釋續編(九)。

64.章瑞卿，〈探討日本檢察制度成功的原因〉，台北:律師雜誌，284期，2003年5月。