嶽麓秦簡奏讞文書之文書格式與審理型態研究

訴訟程序與審理型態是法制史長期以來關注的課題。本文以《嶽麓‧參》為主要材料，探討每一案例的文書結構與審理型態，並分析奏讞文書相關司法術語的涵義。由於案件的重審或覆核審查，涉及跨機關、跨行政階層的程序，這類案件特別能幫助我們瞭解官僚內部的運作，因此是本文的焦點。《嶽麓‧參》的文書類型主要有三：一是「讞類」文書，《嶽麓‧參》「敢讞之」套語的運用相當廣泛而靈活；相較之下，漢初張家山《奏讞書》的「敢讞之」都與「疑獄」有關，且文書格式顯然更為規整，反映秦到漢初行政文書制度規範化的趨勢。二是「獄史得微難獄類」文書，乃縣道官推舉破案有功下屬晉升為二千石官卒史的推薦函，雖與司法案件有關，但並非審理文書。三是「乞鞫覆治類」文書，由審理文書與下行文書組成。後兩類文書的格式與結構，嶽麓秦簡與張家山漢簡高度一致，反映秦到漢初文書行政制度的繼承與延續。奏讞文書所反映司法文書的作業流程，不宜與實際審理程序等同。《奏讞書》與《嶽麓‧參》所反映的，乃司法文書的程式，包含四個部分：一、案由，主要有「告」與「劾」兩類。二、審訊，其記錄形式都是犯嫌先供述，審理人員再行詰問，並以罪犯「辭服」為目的。三、「鞫辭」，為主審官吏對被告罪行的確認，是「當刑」的依據。四、判刑，使用術語有「當」與「論」。在審訊紀錄與鞫辭之間，有「診問」這一文書格式，是審理單位對罪犯身分資料或犯罪資訊的查驗。「覆獄」、「覆治」、「覆案」涉及的重審或覆核審查，在法制史的討論裡經常混淆。「覆治」與「覆獄」概念接近或等同，是上級指示而進行的審理。「覆治」、「覆獄」不必等同於現代概念中的重審，例如乞鞫案的「覆治」屬於重審，但《嶽麓‧參》案例1、6的重審則與「覆治」無關。「覆案」則是覆核審查、查核驗證之意，如無害都吏對「死罪及過失、戲殺人」類案件的「復（覆）案」，應與重審分別看待。

關鍵字

嶽麓秦簡；張家山漢簡；奏讞書；乞鞫覆治；重審；覆案；敢讞之

並列摘要

Litigation procedures and trial types are issues under constant review in legal history. With Qin Bamboo Slips of Yuelu Academy Collection Volume III (Yuelu III) as the major material, this thesis studies the document structure and the trial type of each case and analyzes the meanings of judicial terms in documents of submitted cases. Besides, the thesis will focus on cases that involve cross-institutional and cross-administrative-level procedures since such cases can particularly enhance our understanding of the internal operations of the bureaucracy. The texts of Yuelu III can be classified into three documents types: (1) pleas to the higher authorities for decision making, (2) recommendations of competent investigators for promotion and (3) petitions for a new finding of fact （qiju fuzhi乞鞫覆治）. First, in the pleas in Yuelu III, the formula that “we venture to submit this for decision（gan yan zhi敢讞之）” is used in a comprehensive and flexible way. In contrast, the same formula is always related to a doubtful case when used in the Book of Submitted Doubtful Cases （Zouyan Shu奏讞書） of early Western Han excavated from Zhangjiashan Tomb no. 247, and the document format is also more standardized. This reflects the trend of standardization of the document administration system from Qin to early Western Han. Second, the recommendations are letters by county magistrates to recommend subordinates with contributions to case solving to be promoted to the ranks of 2,000-bushel accessory scribes （zushi卒史）. Though related to judicial cases, such documents are not trial documents. Third, the petitions are composed of judicial documents and documents for subordinate organizations. The format and structure of recommendations and petitions in Yuelu III are highly consistent with those in Zouyan Shu, which reflects the inheritance and continuation of the document administration system from Qin to early Western Han. The work sequences or formats of judicial documents reflected by the documents of submitted cases should not be equated with the actual trial procedures. The texts of Zouyan Shu and Yuelu III represent the format of judicial documents including the following four parts: the cause of action, interrogation, finding of fact （juci鞫辭） and sentence. The cause of action is categorized into accusation （gao告） and ex-officio charges （he劾）. The interrogation has a fixed form of record, in which the suspect’s statement is followed by the trial officer’s cross-examination with an aim to make the suspect “confess”. The finding of fact is the confirmation of the accused crime by the presiding trial officer and also the basis of sentence. To deliver the sentence, the terms used include “proposal for judgement （dang當）” and “judgement （lun論）”. Between interrogation and finding of fact is a format called “forensic examination （zhen診） and interagency enquiries （wen問）”, in which the division in charge of trial checks the identity or criminal information of the offender. “Fuzhi （覆治）”, “fuyu （覆獄）” and “fuan （覆案）” may involve a retrial or a judicial review. The former three are judicial terms of Qin and Han, while the latter two are modern legal concepts, but they are often confused in discussions in legal history. The concepts of “fuzhi” and “fuyu” are similar or equivalent, both being a trial conducted under the instruction of superiors, but they are not necessarily equal to a retrial which means a case should undergo the trial again. For example, “fuzhi” in the petition for a new finding of fact is a retrial, but the retrials of cases 1 and 6 in Yuelu III are irrelevant to “fuzhi”. “Fuan” means review, check and verification, like the “case review” by a highly competent Metropolitan Official （Wuhai duli 無害都吏） for cases “involving a crime that matches the death penalty, as well as one involving killing other persons by mistake or during horseplay”, and should be differentiated from a retrial.