| 關 鍵 詞： |
告知罪名；訴因；起訴狀一本；變更法條；無害瑕疵 |
| 中文摘要： |
對於刑事訴訟法第 95 條第 1 項第 1 款，訊問被告前，必須為罪名之告知，若罪名有所變更，亦應為告知。惟若違反此等告知義務，其法律效果並非如同條項所列的第 2、3 款，即保持緘默與選任辯護人般，具有直接排除證據之效果。如此的區分，也使此等未告知之瑕疵，不會立即被認為於判決之影響，而常被以無害瑕疵，致無法上訴第三審。如此的司法實務之常態，顯然忽略告知罪名於被告訴訟權保障之重要性，也成為本文探討之核心。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Inform the crime；count；a copy of the indictment；the changed legal provisions；harmless error |
| 英文摘要： |
Article 95, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that the defendant be informed of the charges before questioning, and this disclosure must also be made if the charges are changed. However, violation of this obligation to disclose does not, as in Clauses 2 and 3 of the article, directly exclude evidence, as is the case with maintaining silence and appointing a defense attorney. This distinction prevents such failures from immediately impacting the verdict, often being treated as harmless defects, preventing a third-instance appeal. This common practice in judicial practice clearly overlooks the importance of disclosing charges in protecting the defendant's litigation rights, a fact that becomes the core of this article's discussion.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、未告知罪名之法律效果
參、罪名告知與起訴範圍之關係
肆、未告知罪名與刑事訴訟法第 380 條之無害瑕疵
伍、罪數變更與無害瑕疵－最高法院 110 年度台非字第 230 號判決
陸、未起訴罪名與無害瑕疵－最高法院 112 年台上字第 1506 號刑事判決
柒、罪名變更與無害瑕疵－最高法院 112 年台上字第 4896 號刑事判決
捌、罪名擴張與有害瑕疵－最高法院 112 年台上字第 1865 號刑事判決
玖、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|