在刑事審判程序中，法院常因釐清事實的能力有限，以致對被告的被訴事實無法完全明確證明，若依傳統見解(in dubio pro reo､the Pre-sumption of Innocence)為保護人權，往往須為被告無罪之判決。然而當案情雖無法完全釐清，但法院卻可以確定被告在兩種可能犯罪事實「版本」中，若不是犯了這個罪，就是犯了另一個，總之沒有無辜的可能性存在，此時，若分別就二以上的事實可能性檢討，則被告行為合致於此罪構成要件將因事實尚存有構成他罪的可能性而落空；反之，在檢討他罪時，同樣因為仍存有構成此罪的嫌疑而不能完全證明，分別適用傳統見解的結果，只會使一個明知其行為抵觸現行有效處罰法規的被告，獲得無罪判決的寬典。此種結論，是否仍屬法治國原則下，罪刑法定構成要件明確性要求所要保護的目的。為了在法律安定性與個案正義間尋求一個平衡點，德國早在十九世紀末即有「選擇認定」原則的提出，認為在訴訟程序中，若法院極盡一切事實上以及程序上所允許的證明方式，仍無法將案情事實完全釐清，只知道被告所為的事實經過，僅存有兩個「非此即彼」的可能性，而分別可能合致兩個刑罰構成要件，若構成其中一個，即排斥另一個，但總是構成一個，絕對沒有無辜的可能。此時，若該列入考慮的二以上犯罪構成要件彼此間具有一定的關連（通說認為是「法倫理或心理上可比較性」）時，法院可以基於多選擇的事實基礎，而以較輕的罪刑與被告以有罪判決。例如，某被告因持有他人被竊的贓物而被捕，法院在極盡調查､審理之能事後，只知道該名被告若非犯了竊盜行為，就是明知為贓物而故買之，總是犯了一個。依德國聯邦最高法院的見解，由於竊盜罪（德國刑法第二四二條）及贓物罪（德國刑法第二五九條）間具有相同的道德非難，故可允許基於「竊盜罪或贓物罪」的多選擇事實基礎下，為被告有罪之判決。

The legal concept of formal burden of proof of public prosecutor has been discussed for more than 17 years of legislative work on the new Criminal Procedure Code and an increased attention was also paid to it before by the legal science, at the same time with the enforcement of adversary elements of court proceedings. The legal concept in question was established and developed as part of the Anglo-Saxon type of criminal proceedings where trial is based on a dispute between the parties. This involves the exclusive procedural responsibility of public prosecutor to clarify the facts relevant to the indictment filed. Although it is possible to give a brief description of the legal concept in question in a single sentence, its enactment would affect the overall nature of the proceedings before the court and would also be reflected in other stages of the criminal proceedings. The aim of the dissertation was to analyse the prerequisites and consequences of the enactment of the formal burden of proof of public prosecutor in the Czech criminal proceedings. Given the origin of the legal concept, the crucial question was whether its adoption would necessarily constitute a total departure from the legal principles which the existing Criminal Procedure Code is based on or whether it is possible and appropriate...