一個國家發生大規模國家暴力之後，檢討相關人員的責任，向來是重要的轉型正義議題，可是這個議題在台灣因為多種原因，長期被忽略。長達三十八年的戒嚴期間，上萬人因叛亂、匪諜嫌疑被捕、遭判重刑，至少八百人失去生命。在這種官僚式壓迫的體系中，檢討相關人員責任前，須先了解當初他們在暴力行動的參與中如何做出決定。本文藉由判決書檔案，探索並評析軍事法官如何針對政治案件進行判案，並且將人民判處死刑。從中發現幾項事實，可供未來檢討這些法官刑事與道德責任之基礎。法官的判決與論述中，除了曾經出現違法的情形外，亦不乏相同犯罪事實，判決標準不一致，以及違反人權精神等例證。另一方面，確實也曾經出現較為人道的判決。這些事實顯示當時法官擁有裁量權，選擇空間是存在無疑的。從而，部分選擇剝奪人民生命的法官，可能面臨道德上更大的非難。 / As massive state violence subsides, the issue of holding those who carried out such violence into account has always been an important concern. Yet due to numerous reasons, such issue has been long ignored in Taiwan. During the 38-year-long martial law period, tens of thousands of citizens were arrested and severely condemned on charges of subversion or espionage. In such bureaucratic oppressive regime, the decision-making process should be studied prior to the discussion of responsibility. By studying the verdicts, this thesis focuses on exploring and analyzing how death sentences were made by military judges. The results show that not only illegal verdicts have ever occurred, but also the inconsistencies between verdicts with similar criminal facts, as well as examples in violation of human rights spirit. On the other hand, there were indeed some cases where the judges ruled more humanely. In all, these facts demonstrate that the judges did have powers of dicretion, and room for choice undoubtedly existed. Hence, the acts of certain judges, who under the same circumstances chose nevertheless to deprive lives of certain citizens, may seem to be more morally reproachable.