本論文之研究範圍是以檢察官在偵查中對被告以外之人為訊問時，所得之訊問筆錄之證據能力為論述重心，並未就被告在檢察官前所為陳述之證據能力為討論。亦即是以新修正之刑事訴訟法第一百五十九條之一第二項為主要之研究範圍，並附帶論述與之有密切關聯性的新增定傳聞法則之例外規定，諸如：法官、司法警察所取得之被告以外之人之訊問筆錄，或是同意傳聞陳述作為證據等。 其次，本文是以檢察官在偵查中對被告以外之人為訊問時，所得之訊問筆錄—簡稱為檢訊筆錄，為討論之範圍，不包含偵查中之勘驗筆錄、囑託鑑定所得之鑑定報告等等。而訊問筆錄在此係指記載被告以外之人於檢察官面前所為陳述內容之筆錄，且該筆錄須經為陳述之被告以外之人簽名或蓋章始可。 再者，鑑於自從修法後，學者間對於傳聞法則之基本原則、定義及其例外規定已有為數眾多之詳盡論述，故本文只會稍微簡述傳聞法則之背後法理與基本概念，以作為探討檢訊筆錄證據能力之基礎，而不做進一步地深入介紹。 另外，由於我國有關傳聞法則之法律繼受，主要是參考日本之刑事訴訟法證據章之規定，再輔以美國聯邦證據法中關於傳聞法則之規定。故本文在比較法方面，首先會介紹日本與我國檢察官在刑事程序上之定位及其和證據法則之關係，之後再以介紹日本之傳聞法則為主，輔以相關部分附帶提及美國之傳聞法則之規定，以及我國新修正之規定，並就新修正規定在實務上之運作結果為分析與評論。 最後，本文將綜合學者對於第一百五十九條之一第二項之修正建議，並提出自己之意見。

刑事訴訟法是確定國家刑罰權之程序法，刑事訴訟程序進行中，難免侵害人民之基本權。因此，刑事偵查應遵守程序正義，以保障人權。偵訊係將被告、犯罪嫌疑人拘束於特定之地點，即地檢署之偵查庭或司法警察機關之詢問室，且接受檢察官、司法警察人員之訊（詢）問。基於偵查不公開原則，當事人若未委任律師到場陪同，外界難以窺探了解偵訊之過程。為避免發生不當偵訊，刑事訴訟法第100條之1第1項前段規定，訊問被告，應全程連續錄音；必要時，並應全程連續錄影，即在擔保偵訊時當事人陳述之任意性及偵訊筆錄記錄之正確性。第2項規定，筆錄內所載之被告陳述與錄音或錄影之內容不符者，除有急迫情況且經記明筆錄者外，其不符之部分，不得作為證據。因此，被告之陳述若與錄音或錄影之內容不符，偵訊筆錄將受證據排除，而不具證據能力。 實務上偵訊筆錄之製作，並無法與當事人之陳述同步，且偵訊筆錄之記錄，係由訊（詢）問之檢察官、司法警察（官）於整理當事人陳述後，擇與案情有關部分記錄於偵訊筆錄，換言之，偵訊筆錄之記錄，並非逐字記載當事人之陳述，則偵訊筆錄之記錄是否為當事人陳述之真意，迭生爭議。 本研究以文獻分析法、歷史分析法，探討偵訊筆錄記錄完整性與證據能力之研究，並分析刑事訴訟法有關訊（詢）問之相關規定及司法實務上偵查筆錄記錄之現況，經綜合分析提出建議如下： 一、偵訊實務建議 在偵訊實務方面之建議，偵查機關應建立偵訊養成教育之完整計畫，偵訊工作需由專業之執法人員擔任；強化偵訊錄影音監督機制，俾加強對偵訊筆錄記錄正確性及任意性之監督。 二、偵訊教育之完整計畫 偵查機關應將偵訊工作相關法律規範，彙編成冊，並依據法律規定，訂定偵訊標準化、類型化作業程序，依據不同案件類型，編訂擬問問題之標準作業手冊。 三、偵訊錄影音監督機制 為避免證人、被告、犯罪嫌疑人，在檢察官、司法警察（官）泛談前即受到威嚇或脅迫，其到達司法機關後，應即進入詢問室，並立即進行全程錄影，避免在偵訊前即受到脅迫；證人、被告、犯罪嫌疑人到達訊（詢）問地點時間與真正開始製作偵訊筆錄之時間應記錄明確，俾供查核。 四、偵訊筆錄記錄 偵查筆錄之記錄，係經偵訊者整理當事人陳述後，記錄於偵查筆錄，偵訊者應客觀、中立，並以最大之可能性，完整記錄當事人陳述，始符合正當法律程序原則。 五、偵訊筆錄記錄人員 設置專責偵訊筆錄記錄制度，以專門職業訓練認證及考選，納入考選部之「專門職業及技術人員」考試類別，以解決筆錄製作須具公務員之身分問題。 六、偵訊筆錄記錄輔助系統 為提升偵查筆錄記錄之完整性及正確性，可利用電腦科技，建置常用之片語快捷，以減少筆錄編輯時間。 七、修正刑事訴訟法第40條規定 偵查筆錄以電腦記錄，最後列印之筆錄文書，並不會呈現增、刪過程紀錄，建議修正刑事訴訟法第40條規定：「公務員制作之文書，不得竄改或挖補；如有增加、刪除或附記者，應蓋章其上，並記明字數。以電磁記錄製作文書者，其刪除處應留存原字跡，俾得辨認。」 / A Study on the Completeness and Evidentiary Value of Written Interrogation Records The Code of Criminal Procedure is a procedural law for stipulating state power of punishment. In the process of judicial proceedings, it is inevitable that people’s rights might be violated. Therefore criminal investigation should abide by procedural justice in order to protect human rights. Interrogation is to detain defendant or criminal suspect at a certain place, namely investigation room of District Prosecutors Office or interrogation room of judicial police agencies, where the defendant or criminal suspect will be interrogated or questioned by prosecutor or judicial policeman. Based on the principle of secret investigation, the person in question, if not accompanied by a hired lawyer, the investigation process will not be known to the public. To prevent unjustified interrogation, the first part of sub-item 1 of Article 100-1 of The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that when interrogating a defendant, the whole process should be tape-recorded. When necessary, the whole process will be video recorded. This is meant to guarantee the willfulness of defendant’s statement of when being interrogated as well as the correctness of interrogation record. Sub-item 2 of Article 100-1 of The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that if defendant’s statement in interrogation record is not in accordance with contents of interrogation tape record or video record, the Inconsistent part shall not serve as evidence, with the exception of emergency which is especially marked in the said record. Therefore, if defendant’s statement is not in accordance with contents of tape record or video record, the interrogation record will be excluded as evidence，meanwhile losing the credibility of the evidence. In practice, the production of interrogation record is not possible to synchronize with defendant’s statement. The interrogation record is produced by selecting part of defendant’s statement that is related to the case after statement organizing by the prosecutor or judicial police officer who interrogated. In other words, interrogation record is not the word-for-word defendant’s statement. Disputes often happen on whether interrogation record agrees with the true meaning of the defendant’s statement. This research has explored completeness and evidential power of interrogation record through documentary analysis, historical analysis, and comparative analysis. It has also conducted analysis on relevant regulations regarding interrogation (questioning) and current status of actual interrogation record. The research offers the following suggestions after a comprehensive analysis: A. Suggestions on interrogation practice Regarding suggestion on interrogation practice, the investigation organ should draw a complete plan to cultivate qualified investigators, so that the interrogation could be handled by professional law enforcement officials. A supervising mechanism for interrogation tape and video record should be further strengthened in order to supervise the correctness and willfulness of interrogation record. B. Complete Plan for Investigators Cultivation The investigation organ should draw complete plan to cultivate investigators and compile laws and regulations relevant to the work of interrogation into books. Interrogation should be standardized and classified, with the establishment of operational procedure. Based on the nature of different cases, various standard operational manuals with prepared questions should be produced. C. Mechanism to Supervise Tape or Video Record of Interrogation To avoid the threat or intimidation happened before wide-ranging questioning of prosecutor and judicial police officer, the witness, defendant, and suspect will immediately be led into the interrogation room once arriving at the judicial office. Whole-process video recording will be conducted immediately to prevent him from being threatening before interrogation. The exact time and place that the witness, defendant, and suspect arrive at for interrogation (questioning) and the start time of interrogation record should be clearly recorded for checking. D. Interrogation Record Interrogation record, after being compiled by investigator, is being recorded. The investigator should be objective and neutral, and record the statement of the person in question as complete as possible, which conforms to the principle of due process of law. E. Stenographer of Interrogation Record Stenographers must obtain certification after receiving professional training and pass examination. Taiwan has special professional training programs for stenographer. Stenographer is listed in examination category of “professionals and technicians” of Ministry of Examination, which meets the requirement that stenographers have to be civil servants. F. Secondary System of Interrogation Record In order to improve the completeness and correctness of interrogation record, computer technology can be applied to create shortcuts for commonly used phrases，reducing time for recording and compiling. G. Revising Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Interrogation record is recorded by computer. The printed final written version of the record will not show previous processes of addendums and deletions. Suggestion is given to revise Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to the following quoted text: “Documents made by public functionaries are forbidden to revise or edit. Should there are addendums, deletions, or notes added, chops should be placed where such amendment occurs, with the number of altered words noted. When documents are made with computer, original texts should be kept for identification purpose.

首先說明，本文並不著重於法制史之研究。蓋刑事訴訟之動態發展，研究範圍仍應以我國現行刑事訴訟法之規定為主軸，其中我國實務呈現新舊見解交錯影響之狀況，相關的偵審歷史痕跡將於相關章節鋪述，並涉及我國歷年相關學說發展。 關於我國實務見解研究，著重於我國最高法院歷年來所做成的判例，並輔以2003年修法前後最高法院關於偵訊自白的判決、刑事庭決議，其中並納入相關的初級審、上訴審法院判決、座談會以及檢察署研究決議，比較分析我國實務界對於偵訊自白概念與判定證據能力的處理模式。之後並檢討我國實務見解產生的問題。 本文亦將分析我國學說對於偵訊自白的處理，尤其是學說判定偵訊自白證據能力的議題，嚴重受到實務見解「自白法則」之影響，導致偵訊自白的證據能力難以為有系統的說明。相較於此，本文擬從我國歷年修法之相關法制進行研究，並以德國、美國的現行法、判決實務、學說討論進行比較分析。其中在相關議題上，採擇歐陸法系典範的德國學說、實務論述、並及於近年我國刑事訴訟法修訂的法律繼受國美國及日本的學說與相關實務見解，部分並佐以筆者所知悉的歐洲人權法院判決。論述時尤著重於相關概念的說明，特別是在外國學說或實務引介時，探討其所所涵蓋之範圍，避免文義上之誤解 。

為了達到國家追訴犯罪的利益，依據我國刑事訴訟法第176條之1，任何人除非法律另有規定，否則都有「作證義務」－但並不代表證人必須當然忍受國家的任何行為，而在設計證人相關制度時也應考慮證人的主體性感受。本文將以「偵訊中對證人的錄音錄影規定」為研究中心：首先，將說明「偵訊中對證人的錄音錄影」在錄製及其使用上的特性及對證人、其他程序參與者的影響，還有與相關的法院審理原則的關係以及所需要的資源，並以此作為規範需求的討論基礎；再來，將介紹我國目前的制度及實務操作情形，並與外國法制規定交相對照比較；之後將集中在我國及外國法院就「偵訊中對證人的錄音錄影」在審判時作為證據使用的情形討論；最後，欲處理的是「律師把『偵訊中對證人的錄音錄影』用於審判外陳述」的行為應如何看待、規範，並就國內目前所提出的草案及建議，從外國法相關規定的角度出發加以省視該立法建議的合理性。