林鈺雄2006-07-252018-07-052006-07-252018-07-052003http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/12850民國九十一年一月十七日，我國立法院通過刑事訴訟法第一百六十一條的修 正條文，採行「起訴審查制」。立法說明理由中特別提到，本條是參考德國刑事 訴訟法第一百九十九條至二百十一條規定的中間程序（Zwischenverfahren ）之立 法宗旨而訂立。中間程序在德國刑事訴訟法早已行之有年，依照德國刑事訴訟法 的規定，檢察官起訴後，案件先自動進入中間程序，經法院裁定准予開啟審判之 後，案件才會進入審判程序。就比較法言，採行起訴審查制立的法例並不多見， 但德國刑事訴訟的中間程序已經有百年的歷史，學說上也一直關注該制度利弊得 失的檢討，因此，德國該制的研究，對於我國未來起訴審查制度的走向，深具啟 示意義（請參閱伍、附錄：報告論文）。 我國刑事訴訟法第一六一條的規定，雖然參考德國刑事訴訟法的中間程序規 定，但因我國立法條文相當簡略，而立法過程又極為倉促，因此，產生諸多實務 問題，亟待解決。例如，法院起訴審查制度有無審查時點的限制？現行法規定的 「第一次審判期日前」，應該如何解釋？理論基礎何在？起訴審查程序應該採行 何種證據法則？和本案審判程序的證據法則有無不同？法院在中間程序可否調 查證據？可否命令檢察官繼續偵查或補充某一特定事證？ 基於「儘早研究爭議問題並且提早規劃解決方案」之認識，本研究計畫以本 次起訴審查制修法後衍生問題及其解決對策為主要研究範圍，輔以德國中間程序 為比較對象，徹底檢討本次立法的利弊得失，並提出操作基準及相關措施，以供 未來學說闡釋及實務運作的參考（請參閱貳、五、報告內容之結論與建議及伍、 附錄：報告論文）January 17 th 2002, the Legislative Yuan passed a latest revision bill of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter, CCP). Among the revision, the amendment on Article 161 accordingly gave birth to a new mechanism of “prosecution review” (or “indictment review ”) in the criminal procedure in Taiwan. According to the Legislative Reasons for Revision with Art.161, the amendment took as example the intermediate process (Zwischenverfahren) provided in Article 199 to Art. 211 in German Code of Criminal Procedure. In German, the Zwischenverfahren mechanism was introduced into practice since long ago. For a German criminal case, as soon as the indictment is filed by the public prosecutor, the case enters an intermediate review phase authomatically. Until the judge decides a trial hearing is begun, the case will not go into its trial phase. From a view of comparative legislation, the intermediate review is a rare legislative design. Yet since the execution of German intermediate review system has been in practice for more than a centrury, and the German scholars have been keeping examing the relative aspects of the system, the outcome of the research on this issue in German therefore deserves decent attention for the researchers and practioners from a country with a similar system. As one can imagine, the research in German could by all means present a profound enlightment for the future development of the Taiwanese prosecution review system. One the other hand, while taking example from the provision on intermediate review process (Zwischenverfahren) in German CCP, the provision of revised Art. 161, CCP is unduly over-simplified. Since the legislative process was undertaken quite hastily, one can expect quite a few of problems will come up with practical operation in near future. Here are some examples of them. Is there any time limit before which the court may make a prosecution review? How should one appropriately interpret the phrase “before the first trial day” in Art. 161? What is the legal basis of the interpretation? What is the court organization for holding a prosecution review process (a sole judge, a judge panel, or an authorized panel judge)? What evidentiary rule should be adopted for the prosecution review? What will be the difference between the evidentiary rules for trial and for prosecution review? May the court investigate evidence on his his/her motion during the intermediate process? Can the court instruct the prosecutor to go on for further investigation or to add a particular evidentiary item? All of these questions are subject to further discussion and research. Based on the “ earlier study, better solution” theory, this research project takes the issues originated from the amendment on prosecution review in CCP as its primary study scope. The provision of intermediate process in German Code of Criminal Procedure and the related scholar documents and will be cited for making a comparison. The merits and shortcomings of the amendment will be fully discussed. For a practical puopose, the study is also trying to work out a manual of guidelines which could be taken as reference in the dayly practicing for public prosectors and judges.application/pdf117038 bytesapplication/pdfzh-TW國立臺灣大學法律學系暨研究所起訴審查中間程序無罪推定prosecution reviewindictment reviewZwischenverfahren[SDGs]SDG16reporthttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/12850/1/912414H002009.pdf