以一事不再理論檢察官之上訴權

一事不再理原則係禁止就同一行為或犯罪，為重複之追訴及審判。其核心價值，在於防止冤獄、防止騷擾被告、防止審判所帶來之痛苦。容許檢察官就已審理過之案件上訴，有抵觸一事不再理原則而違憲之疑慮，並可能造成訴訟資源之過度浪費、檢察官起訴品質不佳、一審審理散漫化及檢察官為特定之目的而恣意上訴等諸多弊病。本文基於一事不再理原則之理論基礎，並透過美國法判決及理論，逐一檢視現行檢察官上訴制度，主張檢察官對已審理過之案件提起上訴，已抵觸一事不再理而屬違憲，及討論檢察官於何種情形上訴並不違反一事不再理原則，應容許之。並建議，在限制檢察官上訴權後，檢察官之抗告權應如何因應修正，以避免法院錯誤之裁判，使檢察官犯罪追訴之利益受影響。且基於一事不再理原則之相同解釋，檢察官對駁回起訴之裁定提起抗告，亦應有所限制。

關鍵字

一事不再理；禁止雙重危險；不對稱上訴制度；上訴權限制；抗告制度；終局裁判法則；證據排除；駁回起訴

並列摘要

Double Jeopardy Clause is deemed fundamental right in every civilized country on the world. For example, in the United States, Double Jeopardy protection makes a firmly inaccessible fortress, which is a verdict of acquittal is final, and cannot be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting the defendant twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution. In fact, it is considered that banning government's appeals of acquittals severs some purposes: reducing false convictions, decreasing litigation costs, constraining prosecution acting in self-interest or from political motivation. However, in Taiwan, we allow prosecutors to appeal acquittals in any reason. As a result, prosecutors take this right for granted, and it's never been doubted whether it may against the Double Jeopardy Clause and violate the Constitution. Consequently, it's rarely been discussed permitting prosecutors to appeal acquittals could cause false convictions, increase litigation costs, and bring prosecutors the chance to appeal with vindictive, selfish, or political motives. In light of Double Jeopardy protection, my analysis indicates appeals of government squander lots of litigation costs, and annoys litigants unduly. Most importantly, continuing appeals of government without restriction may make defendants despaired, and force defendants to plead guilty. In order to deal with all these qualms above, we suggest prosecutors could not appeal from convictions or acquittals unless appeals of government never violate Double Jeopardy Clause, including ”Sham Exception” and acquittals which is out of evidence and not rational. Moreover, after restricting prosecutors' right of appeal from convictions or acquittals, to avoid false acquittals and miscarriage of justice, we propose it is necessary to allow prosecutors appeal suppressions orders. Besides, for the same reason of Double Jeopardy, we suggest prosecutors could not appeal dismiss rulings after jeopardy attached.

並列關鍵字

Double Jeopardy ； asymmetric appeal ； acquittal ； autrefois acquit ； autrefois convict ； interlocutory appeal ； Final Judgment Rule ； Cohen Doctrine ； excluding evidence ； dismiss charge