刑事訴訟法在歷經多次修正之過程中,立法者朝向「訴訟經濟」及「迅速裁判」之目的進行條文修正,不斷擴大「簡易程序」之適用範圍。觀諸「簡易程序」與「通常審判程序」在部分程序之運作上並不相同,「簡易程序」依現行規定之運作,原則上不須由法官開庭審理,而是由法官為「書面審理」,乃直接審理、言詞審理、公開審理及對質詰問等審理原則之例外。惟此擴大適用之結果,以致「簡易程序」適用之正當性遭到質疑,諸如過度追求「訴訟經濟」及「迅速裁判」,恐有侵犯人民憲法所保障之「訴訟基本權」之疑慮。本文爰由刑事訴訟之目的、基本架構及審理原則出發,進一步推導「簡易程序」制度之特殊目的;再由我國「簡易程序」之立法、修正沿革,解析現行規定下「簡易程序」之架構、特徵;並觀察外國關於簡速裁判程序之立法例,進而檢討我國現行「簡易程序」之制度缺失,期使吾人更能深入瞭解實務運作與理論間之落差,以作為將來修正制度之參考。
The legislatures of the Code of Criminal Procedure try to attain the purpose of litigation on economic principles and speedy trial in recent years. Considering summary procedure can usually reduce the burden of the court, there are many minor cases apply to summary procedure in currently. However, the summary procedure is different from common procedure, such as the defendant who is on trail shall not be open to the public in principle. Therefore, the expansion of applied summary procedure may result in deprivation of the litigation right of the defendant in the case of withouting participation to perform their procedural rights to defense. The primary propose of this article is to research and use the comparative methods to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the current code of criminal summary procedure, and propose possible suggestions and directions of amending.