法學期刊
論著名稱: 半套的起訴門檻審查,有效嗎?-以德國刑事訴訟法中間程序為借鏡(Will a Half-set Prosecution Threshold Examination be Effective?-Using Interlocutory Proceedings of the Code of German Criminal Procedure as an Example)
編著譯者: 黃士元
出版日期: 2018.01
刊登出處: 台灣/法學叢刊第 63 卷 第 1 期 /85-112 頁
頁  數: 28 點閱次數: 984
下載點數: 112 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 法學叢刊雜誌社
關 鍵 詞: 起訴門檻審查中間程序撤回起訴無罪論告
中文摘要: 發現真實與保障人權乃法治國刑事訴訟之目的。《聯合國關於檢察官角色之指引》,其中關於「檢察官在刑事訴訟中之角色」一節,第14 點規定:當一項公正的調查顯示所起訴之犯罪缺乏證據支持時,檢察官不應啟動或繼續追訴,而應盡力使審判程序停止。
起訴門檻審查的規定,功能在賦與被告對抗檢察官「濫行起訴」之「離譜控制」,故「起訴法定原則」要求之門檻自不可能達到「被告應受有罪判決」之「確信」,否則將混淆「裁定駁回起訴」與「判決無罪」之心證標準。檢察官依刑事訴訟法執行職務乃刑事司法機關,仍以負有法律的客觀性義務作為終極價值,且司法體系的理性化與自由化,係以「人民為主體地位之尊重」、「寬容」與「無辜推定原則」作為思惟哲學,方能承擔法律守護人的職責。
本文建議將我國「半套的起訴審查」現制升級為「全套版」,師法德國刑事訴訟法之規定,增訂「中間程序」:法院於該審查程序終結時,均應裁定是否開啟「準備程序」;將檢察官撤回起訴之時點,向前移至「中間程序」終結前;檢察官於審判期日得請求法院為無罪判決等,縮短理論與實務之落差,相信應屬足以填補我國刑事訴訟現制不足之良方。
英文關鍵詞: Prosecution Threshold ExaminationInterlocutory ProceedingsWithdrawal of ProsecutionMotion for Judgment of Acquittal
英文摘要: The discovery of fact and the protection of human rights are the purposes of criminal procedure in countries under the rule of law. In “Role in criminal proceedings” in the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors of UN, according to Article 14, Prosecutors shall not initiate or continue prosecution, or shall make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charge to be unfounded.
The regulation of the prosecution threshold examination serves as defendants’ resistance to prosecutors’ “absurd control” of “abuse of prosecution”. Therefore, the threshold required by the “legal principle of prosecution” shall not be “confirmation of conviction”; otherwise, it will confound the proof criterion of “ verdict of rejection of prosecution” and “judgment of acquittal”.
Prosecutors practice their duties according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to be criminal institutions. The ultimate value is based on the legal objective obligation. Moreover, the rationalization and freedom of the judicial system refers to philosophy of “respect for the people as the subjects”, “tolerance”, and the “presumption of innocence” as the prosecutors’ duty of legal guards.
This study suggests upgrading the current procedure of “half-set prosecution examination” here to a “full set”, and follow the Code of Criminal Procedure in Germany to revise and augment “interlocutory proceedings”: in ending an examination, the court should decide whether to trigger “the preliminary proceedings”; placing the timing of prosecutors’ withdrawal of prosecution to the point before the closure of “interlocutory proceedings”; prosecutors may request an acquittal on the date of trial, in order to fill the gap between theory and practice, which shall improve current criminal procedure in Taiwan.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、客觀性義務與法定原則的誡命
參、提高起訴門檻的規範衝突?
肆、刑事訴訟應引進「中間程序」
伍、結語(修法建議)
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列