21 |
清代人命案件中的檢驗及取證模式江存孝 Unknown Date (has links)
本文寫作的最主要目的,是在探討清代中國的刑案審判過程中,審判官員如何透過各種證據來認定犯罪事實?但犯罪類型多樣,本文僅將研究對象限縮於在人命案件,並特別著重於探討透過「檢驗」所取得的證據處於眾多證據中,究竟發揮什麼功能?
以此為出發點,本文延伸出三個問題意識:首先,第一個問題是「清代人命案件中的檢驗取證方法為何?」這個問題圍繞著以「洗冤錄」為中心的檢驗知識為主要的課題,進而探討清代檢驗取證的程序與方法;第二個問題是「觀察檢驗取證在清代人命案件的中所發揮的效用」,也就是這些證據如何影響了犯罪事實認定與審判的結果;第三個問題則在尋找「檢驗取證在清代人命案件中所顯現的法律意涵」。
本文共分為五章,在第二章的部分是以「洗冤錄」為中心的檢驗知識為探討的主軸。除了耙梳傳統中國法醫學知識的發展之外,並針對宋代到清代,以宋慈《洗冤集錄》為藍本,累積各代經驗增刪修補所形成的檢驗知識進行觀察,嘗試理解檢驗知識何以在清代受到重視,經過官方認可後又以《律例館校正洗冤錄》的版本頒行天下,且在人命案件的審理過中確立其權威性。
本文第三章的部分,以《宮中檔》為史料觀察檢驗知識在實際審判過程中如何被運用?因為清代各省督撫有對人命案件專摺具奏之義務,因此在《宮中檔》許多關於人命案件的奏摺中,相當詳實地記述了州縣官員以及各層級官員在審轉過程中所扮演的角色,同時也一併記錄了檢驗的結果以及人犯干證的招、供詞。在本章中,即是以十一件案例與當時震驚朝野的「楊乃武與小白菜」案為例,觀察清代的審判官員是如何透過檢驗進行死因鑑定,並進而認定犯罪事實。
而第四章所稱的「法律意涵」,主要聚焦於檢驗證據與發見事實之間的關連性,並以清代中國的訴訟制度結構進行反思,理解檢驗存在的必要性。因為檢驗證據的功能不僅在提供死因鑑定,同時也替審判官員指出了一個建構犯罪事實的方向,而這個事實有時可以貼近「真相」,但有時又與「真相」產生一定程度的落差,其中便存有審判官員可以操作的空間。
本文以為檢驗的知識可說是在清代中國的官僚系統中,以一種標準化作業流程的型態而存在著,皇帝透過這個標準化流程便可預期臣屬檢驗品質的程度,藉此建立一套最低限度的採證標準,嚴防官吏瀆職。就人命案件的審理過程而言,官員與仵作使用檢驗技術的結果反應出刑獄治理上的期待,對官員、仵作的控管,回應到人民身上的就是「發見真實、沉冤得雪」的可能性。
若在「行為確定,刑罰也確定」的論述基調下,刑罰的裁判必須仰賴所認定的犯罪事實而來。檢驗在清代中國可說是官員用來確定死亡原因的最好方法,若從制度面來說,州縣官員是整個「必要覆審制」的最前端,其所認定的犯罪事情將是整個官僚制度對於刑獄治理的出發點,因此州縣官員所認定的事實將會對日後的審理產生相當程度的影響,檢驗在其中又佔有舉足輕重的地位。
而審判官員為了要確定犯罪事實,必須在審納各種證據資料後建立待證事實,並分辨各種證據的證明力高低,才能確定待證事實的範圍,因此在犯罪事實確定前,待證事實的範圍都處於浮動的狀態。而一個強而有力的檢驗證據若能被清代的審判官員取信,將會對全案的審理產生指標性的作用。在一些例子中便可以看到,當審判官員相信了檢驗證據所指向的事實之後,其餘的證據就被安排為加強檢驗證據的證明力之用。若從這個角度出發,則原本被期待用來洗冤的檢驗證據,反而成為冤獄的開端了。
|
22 |
專利侵權訴訟中關於專利有效性理論與實務之研究 / A study for patent validity in patent infringement litigation何季陵, Ho, Chi Ling Unknown Date (has links)
智慧財產案件審理法第16條揭示當事人抗辯智慧財產權有應撤銷、廢止之原因者,法院應就其主張或抗辯有無理由自為判斷,不適用相關法律停止訴訟程序之規定。前項情形,法院認有撤銷之原因時,智慧財產權人於該民事訴訟中不得對於他造主張權利。上開規定之意旨在於使同一智慧財產權所生之紛爭得於同一訴訟程序中一次解決,以對智慧財產權作有效保護。
依據上開規定,專利有效性之議題即可能為專利侵權訴訟程序及舉發程序所審理。兩程序審理之情形下,專利有效性之認定即可能會因對同一證據事實有不同見解而使認定結果產生歧異(嚴格定義下之判決歧異)或因證據/請求權基礎之不同而產生歧異(假性之判決歧異)。
民事法院和行政機關/法院於發明、新型及新式樣專利對專利有效性具兩歧認定之比例分別為所有抗辯專利有效性案件之6.8%、16%及12%。具歧異認定之案件中約有8%係因對同一證據之處理方式不同。約66%之案件係起因於呈送之證據有別及主張之撤銷理由不同,而此歧異認定或可於後續程序化解。另約有8%歧異認定之案件係因智慧局之見解受到先前經濟部對該見解之拘束,此分歧認定之結果或需藉由救濟程序才得化解。又約有16%具歧異認定之案件係因民事法院非以舉發程序中構成「舉發成立」之要件審酌系爭專利是否具撤銷事由,此歧異認定之結果尚需仰賴救濟程序始得化解。
民事法院倘非以舉發成立要件審酌專利有效性,則其審酌範疇可能涵蓋:得據以舉發事由、未達得據以舉發標準之事由、專利法及施行細則中得據以使申請案不予專利或不受理之事由。而有違誠信原則之事由亦可能受到審查,使系爭專利有不可執行之虞。倘民事訴訟有效性抗辯得涵蓋上開事由,則可預見本質不良但被智慧局誤准之專利將有去除之途徑,公眾利益即得以維護;專利申請人於申請過程中較可能考慮遵循誠信原則;且專利糾紛得以完全於一訴訟程序一併解決。專利環境或可能朝優質化、誠信化及效率化發展。於此架構下,侵權訴訟專利有效性抗辯機制及舉發程序之雙軌制審理即各有實質存在意義。
專利權人於台灣侵權訴訟具專利有效性抗辯案件之勝訴比約10%;敗訴案件中,發明、新型及新式樣專利被認定具無效事由之比例約為48%、65%及40%。審理法施行以來,舉發申請案之案件量約僅減少6%至7%,或隱含專利侵權訴訟不僅未於一定程度取代舉發制度更可能因而使當事人必需同時面對侵權訴訟與舉發程序雙軌戰場之處境。
審理法第16條之施行加快民事訴訟審結速度,達到迅速實現訴訟當事人權利保護之立法目的。而專利權所生之紛爭於同一訴訟程序中一次解決之目的,依檢驗角度之不同而有截然不同之結果,因此或可說未全然達到紛爭一次解決之立法目的。 / Article 16 of Intellectual Property Case Adjunction Act in Taiwan reveals that when a party claims or defends that an intellectual property right shall be cancelled, the court shall decide based on the merit of the case and the relevant laws concerning the stay of an action shall not apply. Under the circumstances in the preceding paragraph, the holder of the intellectual property right shall not claim any rights during the civil action against the opposing party where the court has recognized the grounds for cancellation of the intellectual property right. The main purpose of the article is to solve the disputes over Intellectual Property Right in one litigation proceeding so as to protect the intellectual property right effectively.
According to said article, the validity issue of a patent may be dealt with under civil litigation and invalidation proceedings. Under the circumstances, the decisions on the validity issue of a patent may be diverged due to different perceptions on the same evidence/fact (defined in this article as “actual decision divergence”) or different submitted evidences or instituted grounds (defined in this article as “fake decision divergence”).
With respect to invention, utility model, and design patents, about 6.8%, 16% and 12% of cases with invalidity defense respectively had decision divergence between civil court and administrative organization/court. Among patents with decision divergence, around 8% of the patents were due to different perceptions of the same evidence. About 66% of the patents were deemed differently due to different evidences and instituted grounds. This discrepancy may be resolved in subsequent proceedings. Around 8% of the patents having divergent decisions were resulted from that the opinion of Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) is confined by that in a previous administrative action issued by its superior organization, the Board of Appeal. This discrepancy may need to be resolved through a remedial procedure. Approximately 16% of the patents were determined differently because the civil court adopted different standards for initiating an invalidation action. This type of discrepancy may only be resolved through a remedial procedure.
When the civil court uses its own standards in determining the validity issue of the patent in question, the scope of judicial review might include: the grounds of invalidation proceedings, the grounds of invalidation proceedings with loosened standards, the grounds attributed to a patent being rejected or an application to be inacceptable to TIPO based on Patent Act or the Enforcement Rules of Patent Act. In addition, inequitable conduct might also be reviewed. Under the circumstances, defective patents have a chance to be removed, a duty of candor and good faith would be more likely to be followed during prosecution; patent disputes are able to be reviewed entirely in one proceeding. It is expected that the quality of the patent system would be improved. Moreover, either the invalidity defense mechanism in infringement litigation, or the invalidation proceeding serves its own purpose.
For patent infringement cases with invalidity defense, plaintiffs won about 10% of the cases. Among the cases lost by plaintiffs, the patent at issue deemed by civil court as invalid accounted for about 48%, 65% and 40% for invention, utility model and design patents respectively. Since the IP Case Adjudication Act took effect, the number of invalidation cases has decreased about 6-7%, which might indicate that the invalidity defense mechanism in infringement litigation does not replace the invalidation proceeding.
The regulation of Article 16 of IP Case Adjudication Act speeds up civil proceedings indicating that the legislative purpose of providing effective protection to parties in IP litigation may be realized. However, the legislative purpose of solving patent disputes in one proceeding may not be achieved fully as the test results vary on the basis of different evaluation criteria.
|
23 |
社工專業於福利服務法制中之定位 —以兒少保護安置與收出養認可案件為中心 / The Social Workers’ Legal Status on Social Welfare Law: With Emphasis on Child Protection Placement and Children Adoption黃國媛 Unknown Date (has links)
兒童少年權益保障向來是社會福利服務法制著重之處,蓋我國憲法基本國策章節第156條作為憲法委託條款,即課予立法者積極建置完善兒童福利法制之義務。從1973年制定兒童福利法後,迄至2011年以「兒童及少年福利與權益保障法」,兒童福利服務相關之法制已趨向完備,尤可見證兒童從「保護客體」至「權利主體」地位轉變之過程。而社工人員基於其對兒童少年發展、家庭政策之認識,以及資源引介與諮商等專業技巧,成為兒少福利服務主要提供者,立法者期待社工發揮賦權功能,協助身心未臻成熟之兒少實踐其權益。
然而,福利服務法制雖高度規範社工職責,卻仍可耳聞因社工人力不足,或專業判斷缺失導致之重大虐兒案件,本文以此為觀察基礎,並提出問題意識:社工專業與兒少權益保障之關係為何?社工人員於行政與司法程序之定位又是如何?而從事社會工作業務者,可能來自公部門行政機關,或是來自私部門民間團體,故本文以「兒少保護安置」與「兒少收出養案件」為研究範疇,前者釐清公部門社工於緊急保護安置公權力行使之界限,及其與司法審查間之關係;至於兒少收出養案件,本文則探討民間兒少福利團體受法院囑託所出具之訪視建議,對於法院裁判有如何拘束力,又如何定性該受託法律關係等問題。
對於社工人員應如何認知自身權利與義務,應如何積極執行履行其法定職務並有效落實兒童權利,本文以英國兒童法制為借鏡,說明英國兒童法對於兒童保護安置有其細膩之評估標準與程序,同時強調多元專業參與之觀點,至於英國收養審判程序中,則由專門機構進行訪視並提出建議。英國法制同時強調司法與行政程序中皆應考量兒童自主意見,並著重兒童與父母家庭生活權之保障。反思於我國,本文具體指出,於兒少保護安置措施中,公部門社工員就法律不確定概念之涵攝及決定安置與否,應透過與法院之對話發展出更完善之準則,避免濫權或怠於行使職權等影響人民權利之憾事發生;至於兒少收出養案件,本文則認為政府應積極建置司法社工,避免囑託委外契約之紊亂,同時應兼顧當事人程序事前事後聽審權保障,又司法與社會工作實務工作者應留意專業自主判斷空間與界限,方能達成跨專業合作保障兒少權益之目的。
|
24 |
加盟契約資訊提供義務之違反-以民事損害賠償責任為中心 / The Breach of Duty of Information in Franchise Agreements: Study on the Civil Liability曾郁潔 Unknown Date (has links)
加盟實務運作上,常見加盟業主為勸誘民眾進入加盟體系,而違反資訊提供義務的情形,致生不少糾紛。有鑑於此,主管機關訂有「公平交易委員會對於加盟業主經營行為案件之處理原則」,要求加盟業主應揭露特定資訊予加盟者。惟此管理規範有其極限,違反效果難以直接連結至民事賠償責任。故個案救濟上,仍需回歸民事法領域觀察。本文即嘗試探究加盟業主各違反行為於判決實務之具體問題,以建構相關民事賠償責任。
觀察我國實務,會發現締約前後資訊提供義務實有同一化之傾向。例如多被認為屬契約上義務之加盟店地點評估,亦為締約前資訊提供義務內容。另參考日本法,也有見解認為財務性預測資訊,與加盟者後來支付的加盟金間具有對價關係。故針對民事賠償責任之建構,本文認為現行法下,應以民法第227條不完全給付,作為資訊提供義務的請求權基礎。本於此前提,針對加盟業主未提供資訊的違反態樣,應提供資訊範圍有以民法債各規範相繩之可能。又當加盟業主提供不實資訊時,判斷重點則應由加盟業主有無為保證業績行為,移至預測過程的誠實性。單純的預測偏差雖不致生損害賠償責任,但就財務性預測資訊的預測手法及適用過程等,應要求具有相當合理性,不應有預測數值經人為操作、對商圈的錯誤認識及恣意的數值設定等情況。同時,並將加盟者的經歷條件移至法律效果之與有過失階段考量。在責任成立階層無庸檢討其經歷條件。最後就損害賠償的範圍,再透過與有過失及損益相抵等手段調節。
|
25 |
我國核課處分程序重開之探討 / The remedy of tax administrative:Recommence the tax administrative procedure翁培祐, Weng,Pei Yu Unknown Date (has links)
租稅行政是一種侵益行政,核課處分更具有大量行政處分之特性,而人民對於租稅法律並不熟稔,因此,核課處分必須有一套完善的行政救濟,以盡保障人民權益之最大可能。
我國在2001年開始實施的行政程序法中,參考了德國聯邦行政程序法第48條、第49條及第51條等規定,植入了行政程序重開的制度。但是在該法實施後,各行政機關對於該項制度應如何運用並無定見,甚有誤引誤用者。本論文就此一課題,嘗試從德國行政程序重開制度由來、理念,分析我國行政程序法相關規定之定位,並以侵益之核課處分為客體,整理我國相關判決及釋令,就核課處分重開程序之現行法制加以檢討,期能繪製出稅捐稽徵所涉行政程序重開之草圖。 / The tax administration disposition is one kind of rendered en masse and burden administration dispositions. People are not familiar to the law of the tax, so nuclear lesson is that it must have one perfect administration remedy system even more than to punish, in order to ensure people rights and benefits most heavily and possibly to ensure.
The legislators enacting the recommence administrative procedure in the administrative procedure law that Taiwan began to implement in 2001 had consulted the article 48, 49, and 51 of the administrative procedure law of Germany. However, many administrative authorities were wrongly guided or persons misapply after this law was implemented. This thesis attempts to realize the origin and idea of the German recommenced administrative procedure, and analyse the recommence tax administrative disposition procedure of Taiwan . This thesis will also examine the current legal system of recommence the tax administrative dispositions by the relevant judgments and orders of Taiwan. Finally it is probable to draw out a better system of the recommence tax administrative disposition.
|
Page generated in 0.0132 seconds