緩起訴之理論與實務－我國緩起訴修法之建議

The Theory and Practice of Deferred Prosecution －The Advice for Legal Amendment of Deferred Prosecution

王昭婷(CHAO-TING WANG)

指導教授 ： 廖正豪

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2010年)

摘要

本篇論文主題為緩起訴之理論與實務，引領我探討緩起訴制度的初衷很單純，記得當年緩起訴制度剛引進國內時，學者沸沸揚揚的爭論加上立法時引燃的軒然大波，正反意見兩極拉扯，那時的我很困惑，為何立法說明中所謂的「篩檢案源、作為採行當事人進行主義的配套措施」等等理由，會有那麼大的爭議呢？緩起訴中所謂的「訴訟經濟」理念對刑事法研究者而言，難道真的是一大衝擊挑戰嗎？刑事法莫非針真的只能恪遵罪責原則而無轉寰餘地嗎？我感到費解且矛盾。

罪責原則與公平正義，無庸置疑地，於刑事法學裡具有無人能否定的價值與地位，但實體刑法終究必須面臨程序法這條軌道，兩者若不接軌而任其分道揚鑣，再崇高的刑法理論都將淪為文人筆下的空言口號，於是程序法上的變革必定隱含了實體法上的某些妥協。這樣的結論，是對或錯？適當不適當？該怎麼看待，其實是個難題，又如果必須在對與錯之間搖擺，哪一個位置才是平衡的取捨點，那又更是難上加難，因此我想好好端詳緩起訴這個制度真正的全貌，它所帶來的影響及結果會是什麼。

本篇論文既是為了仔細詳視緩起訴制度而生，故理論與實務於本篇論文中一併兼顧，本篇論文尤其重視實務運作的現況與成果，所以除外國法概論、我國學理及法制的闡述外，於實務個案上本篇論文特別多有著墨，希望藉由各種不同個案的呈現，能更具體瞭解緩起訴制度於真實世界裡究竟是搖曳生姿抑或是醜態畢露，每一則個案都是真人真事，赤裸裸地去省視評析個案，比起讓一個制度在學術的象牙塔裡高談闊論，應該更具有實益。故於文末，本篇論文將依實務的觀點，建議立法修正的方向，並試圖規劃緩起訴制度更臻完美的未來。

關鍵字

緩起訴 ； 刑事政策 ； 實體正義 ； 簡易判決 ； 緩起訴處分金 ； 緩起訴實務

並列摘要

When the deferred prosecution was first introduced to Taiwan, it caused a great disturbance. Since then, I have been wondering why the following two reasons which are mentioned in the statement of the deferred prosecution caused such a great controversy:
1. the purification of the source of the case;
2. the supplementary measures of the adoption of the modified adversary system.
Following what is mentioned above, I furthermore feel confused about the two below:
1. whether the idea of the suit economy in the deferred prosecution is really a
huge strike and challenge for the criminal law researchers;
2. whether the criminal laws can be only complied with the Schuldprinzip without
any other alternatives.

Surely Schuldprinzip and the principle of justice have their own undeniable value and status in criminal law. However, when the substantive criminal law meets the procedure law, there is a balance to strike between them. If those two diverged from each other, the rest theories of the noble criminal law would be nothing but some slogans. Hence, the reform in the procedure law must conceal some compromises of the substantive law. Such a conclusion may not be appropriate and can be a difficult issue. Not to mention the difficulty when trying to strike a balance in between. Thus, I’d like to examine closely the possible effects and consequences that the deferred prosecution system may bring about.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the deferred prosecution system in details. Therefore, this thesis includes both theory and practice, especially the status and the result in practical operation. Besides the introduction of the law in other conturies and the statement of the domestic theory and law, the theory and practice will both be given, and the latter will be more emphasized. By analyzing different cases, this thesis is expected to reveal whether the deferred prosecution is good or bad in the real world. Each case that will be presented in this thesis is factual. Through reviewing the cases, it should be more beneficial than through merely talking over the theories. In the view of practice, hopefully, this thesis by the end will be able to offer the appropriate direction of mapping out the perfect deferred prosecution system in the future.

並列關鍵字

deferred prosecution ； deferred prosecution practice ； disciplinary action fine ； criminal policy

參考文獻

6.陳建民，刑事訴訟制度之變革與前瞻，國家政策研究基金會，民國92年12月。

11.柯耀程，緩起訴被起訴的效力－兼評最高法院九十六年度台非字第二三二號判決，月旦法學雜誌，第 156 期，頁276-285，民國 97 年 04 月 15 日。

24.楊義翔，負擔≠刑罰 緩起訴≒不起訴 緩起訴處分後，可否再行政罰?-台灣高等法院高雄分院九十五年度交抗字第一九○號裁定之評析，法令月刊，第 58 卷 9 期，頁37-46，民國 96 年 09 月。

28.藍傳貴，緩起訴制度之探討，法令月刊， 第 56 卷 5 期，頁4-14，民國 94 年 05 月。

17.許春金、陳玉書、游伊君、柯雨瑞、呂宜芬、胡軒懷，從修復式正義觀點探討緩起訴受處分人修復性影響因素之研究，犯罪與刑事司法研究， 第 7 期，頁141-190，民國 95 年 09 月。