1 |
刑事訴訟自由心證主義之研究葉志飛 Unknown Date (has links)
本論文之撰寫乃是針對刑事訴訟中自由心證主義之相關問題加以分析,並不及於其他訴訟程序中之自由心證主義。蓋僅以自由心證主義是否必須以證據裁判主義或嚴格的證明為前提,刑事訴訟與民事訴訟因訴訟理念及機能之不同,即有相異之考量。
本論文共分六章。第一章為緒論;第二章至第四章則為本文欲分析之主要部分,分別是自由心證主義之概念與歷史沿革、自由心證主義之法理構造、自由心證主義之擔保及自由心證主義之例外;第六章則為結論。
在第一章緒論中,首先指出本論文的研究動機,並指出以下各個論文主題之主要研究方法與目的。
在第二章中,分析自由心證主義之概念與歷史沿革。其中自由心證主義之概念,係從其與證據裁判主義、法定證據主義之比較,以及自由心證主義本身中心證與自由的意義等等予以架構。又自由心證主義之探討,慮其長久苦難歷史產物之性格,因對其歷史沿革作一簡介。
在第三章中,分析自由心證主義之法理構造並將其解構為主體、客體、精神及心證程度四個要素。
在第四章中,分析自由心證主義之擔保機制。首先對擔保機制及其他與影響自由心證內容之其他機制作一區別,並進而對個個已在學說實務上成為探討對象之擔保機制,分析其內涵及與自由心證之關係,並得出有無實質擔保機能之看法。
在第五章中,分析自由心證主義之例外。分析之範圍為被告之自白、共犯之自白、告訴人之陳述、審判筆錄之證明力及與錄音帶、錄影帶內容不符之被告筆錄之證明力,並得出肯定與否定之結論。另提出將自由心證主義之例外作為檢驗近來修法通過之起訴審查制審查基準之看法。
在第六章結論中,說明自由心證主義之將來、總結先前之分析探討,並指出筆者尚未能解決之相關問題點。
|
2 |
證明度之研究 / The Standard Of Proof賴映淳, Lai, Ying Chun Unknown Date (has links)
證明度係法院認定事實之標準,其為法院獲得確信心證所必須跨越之最低心證限度。由此觀之,證明度係法院審判過程中,心證活動之重心之一,其亦與當事人間之舉證活動密不可分。關於此議題,分別屬於英美法系與大陸法系之不同國家間,因其各自有其不同之訴訟構造與制度設計,以及源自各自著重之民事訴訟目的觀有所差異,而各自發展出不同制度之設計。因此,於觀察、討論證明度議題時,難以輕易得出一絕對是或非之結論,相反的,一國採取何種證明度制度,往往與該國之制度設計及其基本理念相關。故而,進行證明度之相關研究時,宜一併探求該制度下之背景與其設計理念,並予以尊重,而非堅持一截然之對或錯之結論,如此,對於促成不同制度間之對話即有所助益,更利於彼此相互參考、截長補短。
|
3 |
自由心證之運作 —以間接證明模組建立作為自由心證運用合理化之基礎為核心 / Operations of Free Evaluation of Evidence Principle —On Building Models of Indirect Proof as Legitimized Ground劉奕榔, Liu, Yi Lang Unknown Date (has links)
職司審判之法院,其職權係為「認定事實」與「適用法律」。就事實之認定,我國採取「自由心證原則」,亦即事實應如何透過證據證明、推論而得,授權由法官於個案中認定,然該原則中「自由」之意義,係具有其具體之內在內涵與外在限制,並非由法官恣意判斷。過去之實務與學說並未就此為深入之闡釋,迭生審級平行與垂直判決之歧異,及人民對法院判決之非議。從而根本之道,應係完整建構自由心證原則之實質意義,由運用之主體、客體、內在內涵、外在限制及其作用等面向,並提出其運用之模組,具體化此立法者規範之不確定法律概念,使運用該原則之法官,得以有依循及參考之路徑。
而自由心證原則內涵中,最常於訴訟中運用者,即為「間接證明」,因主要事實由直接證據直接證明乃少見之情狀,而由間接證據證明間接事實,進而依間接事實之推理作用,推論主要事實存否之情形,乃訴訟中之常態。然間接證明之內涵中,「間接事實之內容與數量」、「推理作用之內涵」、「間接事實間推理作用所得證明主要事實之射程」,皆係高度個案裁量運用之認定,然現今實務之運作,卻出現審級間運用內容及結果極為歧異之現象,從而應探究其內涵,並嘗試提出運用之模組,供運用之法官思考。
自由心證與間接證明作為具有高度實務操作性格之訴訟法原則,其運用之 良窳,已實際影響具體個案事實認定之問題。為改善及斧正目前實務運作上出現之認定歧異、迭經發回之問題,亟須透過以上之研究,提出訴訟中運用之方式,以及其於事實審間、事實審與法律審間運用之審查、互動關係,使該二抽象原則具有一定法安定性,而有一定運用之軌跡可循。 / The court, to act as trial institute, has its major authority to “determine the fact” as well as “apply the law”. As for the fact-finding, our country adopts “Free Evaluation of Evidence Principle”, which authorizes the judge to determine case by case how the fact is proved and inferred through the evidences. However, the meaning of “Free” in that principle is constructed with concrete inner connotation and outer restriction, and not decided by the willfulness of the judge. In the past, courts and scholars didn’t elaborate that principle in depth, which has given a rise to the discrepant verdicts between different courts and criticisms from the people. Consequently, the fundamental solution is to build the substantial connotation of free evaluation of evidence principle, by means of the observations of its operating subject, object, inner connotation, outer restriction and function as well as its operating model, and to reify this uncertain concept of law regulated by legislator, so as to find a way to follow and refer to by the judge.
The most commonly-adopted content of free evaluation of evidence principle is “Indirect Proof ”. Owing to proving the direct fact through direct evidence is rarely seen in lawsuit, the application of proving indirect fact by indirect evidence, and then inferring the existence of direct fact through the inferring function of indirect fact, is much common in each case. Nevertheless, in the meaning of Indirect Proof, the “content and amount of indirect fact”, “content of inferring function” and “scope which the direct fact could be inferred from the direct fact” are determined by large-scale discretion of the judge case by case. As a result of the discretion, the circumstances of divergent operating contents and consequences are emerged. Therefore, the connotation of that principle should be analyzed and the operating models are tried to addressed, hoping to provide for the judge to take into account.
“Free Evaluation of Evidence Principle” and “Indirect Proof”, which are conducted as civil procedural principle in a highly individually case-operating nature, substantially influence the fact-finding in specific lawsuit with its odds and ends of operation. In order to improve and correct the discrepant fact-finding and constantly-verdict-reversing problems appearing in the courts at present, it is necessary to bring up the ways to operate the two principles as well as the reviewing and interacting relationships between trial courts and trial court and trial of law, and to establish specific legal certainty, legal steability and operation standards.
|
4 |
民事程序中違法取證可利用性之研究 / A Study on Admissibility of Evidence Obtained Illegally in Civil Procedure劉承翰, Liu, Chen Han Unknown Date (has links)
違法取得之證據於民事訴訟上可否予以使用,涉及之層面甚為廣泛,最為相關者,即係對於發現真實之手段上,所容許最大界限之所在,此自涉及到民事訴訟制度上之價值判斷,因此欲釐清此一爭議問題,自有必要以民事訴訟之最上位法理,諸如發現真實之追求、民事訴訟制度之目的,以及促進訴訟等相關之基本理念予以探討,本文整理並歸納目前文獻上所提出之諸多理論,以違法取證可利用性之角度切入予以觀察,是否有所衝突抑或係理念相同之處,以尋求此議題於民事訴訟整體架構之定位;此外若係採取禁止使用之立場,為避免實質正義之完全剝奪,即須進一步探討民事訴訟制度之發展,是否已提供足以正當化禁止使用此類證據之正當性基礎,本文並以實務上最為常見之通姦案例為焦點,具體操作評估此理論基礎之可行性。
再者,職司審判之法院為達認定事實之要求,自須依自由心證而為證據取捨並為證據評價,此自為自由心證之內涵,而欲承認違法取得之證據將有禁止使用之可能者,自須探討是否法官得基於自由心證,而享有證據之利用自由,為釐清此一爭議,本文以證據能力之要件、證據能力與證據價值之區分、嚴格證明之要求,並進一步釐清民事訴訟法以及實務運作上對於各種證據能力之規範,以尋求違法取得之證據於自由心證之定位。
對於違法取得之證據倘若欲禁止使用,實務上所面臨到操作上之問題,即係基於何種理論基礎、何種審查方式、於審判程序何種階段予以審查、證據禁止之範圍均須一併納入探討之範圍予以釐清,而民事訴訟上違法取證之議題,外國法已發展出一套運作模式,因此本論文於此同時整理並歸納外國法之文獻,諸如英美法之證據排除法則之運作,以及德國法之證據禁止法則之介紹,並與我國法之制度運作互為參照比較,是否可為我國體系建構上之參考借鏡。
同時再以實務上較為常見之違反程序法,以即違反實體法所取得之證據,予以類型化分類,並以學說見解之介紹與實務見解之觀察與分析,探討是否有較為穩定性之運作模式,以符合法安定性。
最後基於實務見解對於此類議題已有為數不少之判決,本論文即以表格化之方式,予以呈現實務上目前對於證據禁止使用之審查方式為何、證據禁止使用之比例多寡、對於各種類型係以何種原因作為判斷可利用性之考量,期望能較為清楚目前實務見解對此一議題之走向。
|
Page generated in 0.0202 seconds