| 關 鍵 詞： |
證據能力；行政調查；刑事偵查；自首；貪污治罪條例；陸海空軍刑法；認定軍刑法三原則 |
| 中文摘要： |
軍法案件改隸普通法院行使審判權後，軍事長官原有之軍法警察官身分已不生訴訟程序上的效用，對於實務上所常見證據能力爭執、自首要件及軍刑法認定之適用優位等均有影響。其中，（一）在證據能力部分，國軍行政調查所得之證據，包含被告自白、被告以外之人之陳述、物證等，行政調查人員應依循行政程序法及國防部所頒布相關實施規定，蒐集取得之非供述證據，自屬合法取得之證據；如有違反相關程序規定，則應依刑事訴訟法第 158 條之 4 之規定權衡判斷之；被告以外之人的供述，因國軍行政調查之監察官或行政調查人員並無司法警察官或司法警察身份，僅得依刑事訴訟法第 159 條之 5 規定，因被告明示同意或擬制同意而例外取得證據能力，並注意保障被告之對質詰問權；被告於行政調查時之自白，仍生刑事訴訟法第 156 條之自白效力，被告若爭執未受權利告知所為自白之效力，則由法院依刑事訴訟法第 158 條之 4 規定權衡判斷之。（二）軍法警察（官）喪失直接受理自首之權限，現役軍人之直屬長官亦不復其受理自首申告之窗口地位，此後現役軍人向上開人員及接受國軍調查時為自首之表示時，均屬「向非有權偵查案件之公務員自首」之情形，應先以行為人之客觀情狀，判斷申告人有無委請該非有權偵查案件之公務員轉送有權偵查機關並接受裁判之意思。（三）雖然有認為認定軍刑法三原則仍為軍、司法機關之共識，並以現役軍人竊取一般軍用物品之具體案例，應運用軍刑法三原則之第一原則，以貪污治罪條例為陸海空軍刑法之特別法，但此為最高法院現行可查之判決所不採，而應論以陸海空軍刑法刑法第 64 條第 3 項竊取或侵占一般軍用物品罪處斷。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Evidence Admissibility；Administrative Inquisition；Criminal Investigation；Voluntary Surrender to the Authorities；Anti-Corruption Act；Armed Forces Criminal Act；Rule of Law in Conflict |
| 英文摘要： |
After the ordinary criminal court took over the adjudication of martial law cases from the military court, military officers no longer bear the capacity of judicial police officers, which lead to certain practical issues arise from admissibility of evidence, validity of surrendering, and application between military criminal law and ordinary criminal law.
Non-testimonial evidence collected by martial administrative investigation personnel is admissible submitted to all relevant procedure rules that have been followed. However, the balancing doctrine of Criminal Procedure Law (C.P.L.) 158-4 shall be applied if relevant procedure rules have been violated during the collection process. Testimonial evidence made by witnesses other than the defendant is inadmissible unless the defendant has given his/her consent and his/her right of confrontation has been protected, as the personnel or supervisory officers responsible for military administrative investigation no longer have the power as judicial police officers. A defendant’s prior statement made during internal investigation process is admissible (C.P.L. 156) unless the defendant has never been given any Miranda warning before making such statement, in which circumstance the balancing doctrine of C. P.L. 158-4 shall be applied to decide its admissibility. Military personnel committing a crime can no longer enjoy the benefit of sentence mitigation if he/she surrender himself/herself to the military police officer or his/her immediate supervisor, as neither the military police officer nor the immediate supervisor bears the power as judicial police officers. However, under such circumstances, the judge has to decide whether he/she has the intention to request the military police officer or the supervisor to transfer the case to the judicial police officers with power in order to determine if his/her sentence shall be mitigated. A certain legal theories suggest three principles to resolve the conflict of application between ordinary criminal laws and military ones, and indicate that in the case of military personnel’s larceny of military property, the Anti-Corruption Act shall be applied instead of the Criminal Law of the Armed Forces. However, the supreme court has rejected this view and concluded that in such case the Criminal Law of the Armed Forces is superior to the Anti-Corruption Act.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、證據能力的判斷
一、國軍行政調查與刑事偵查之不同
（一）依據不同
（二）主體不同
（三）目的不同
（四）發動不同
（五）作為不同
二、國軍行政調查獲得證據的證據能力
（一）非供述證據
（二）被告以外之人的供述
（三）被告於行政調查之自白
（四）對質詰問權的保障
（五）法院得不予說明未引用為證據之證據能力爭執
參、軍法案件的自首
一、自首要件
二、自首適用在刑法與軍刑法案件之不同
三、向非有權偵查案件之公務員自首之效力
四、現役軍人於國軍行政調查時自首之效力判斷
五、軍事審判法修正的影響
肆、認定軍刑法三原則
一、內涵
二、具體案例運用
三、最高法院見解
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|