蔡墩銘臺灣大學：國家發展研究所李慶隆Li, Ching-LungChing-LungLi2007-11-272018-06-282007-11-272018-06-282006http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/57201中文摘要 本論文乃因筆者所經辦的數聲請交付審判之案件均遭駁回，然當事人卻仍然深表不服之情況下，始引起筆者想要探討此制度之堂奧所在，包括此制度之立法經過、外國立法例及實務運作，我國實務之運作成效等等，經研究結果讓筆者對當事人前揭不服已獲釋然，證實他山之石可以攻錯。本論文共分八章，第一章主要在闡明本論文之研究動機、研究目的、研究途徑、研究方法、範圍等作一概略之介紹。於第二章係以交付審判制度之意義、理論基礎及程序功能為論述之重點。除說明交付審判之基本概念外，並就交付審判制度之法律性質，提出綜合德、日及我國學說上之爭論，另從憲法上訴訟權保障暨基於人性尊嚴之原則等觀點，探討交付審判制度之理論基礎何在。最後再探究交付審判制度之程序功能，期對交付審判制度有初步之認識。其次在第三章係論述我國交付審判制度立法之經過，包含當初之立法背景，乃因社會上普遍對司法之信任度長期不彰，民間要求司法改革之呼聲不斷，始有全國司法改革會議之召開，尤其就檢察官濫用或誤用不起訴職權之外部監督機制，本來建議引進日本檢察審查會制度，詎在全國司法改革會議上作最後之表決時竟未達成共識，嗣法務部改提出引進德、日之法院審查制，立法院也在不久三讀通過，改採用日本準起訴及德國強制起訴制度之立法例，通過設立交付審判制度，在本章有介紹當初整個立法過程之始末。另外於第四章係基於他山之石可以攻錯之信念，由於我國乃折衷德、日立法例，以比較法之觀點，對我國交付審判制度所師法之德、日之相關法制加以介紹，並介紹美國大陪審團制度及日本檢察審查會制度，經研究結果發現我國的確選擇適合我國國情而折衷德、日之法制。在第五章係論述我國交付審判制度之實務運作體系。因交付審判制度係我國新設之制度，有必要對實務如何運作加以介紹。在介紹過程即可發現現行實務運作所衍生之問題何在，而目前我國實務之運作均以司法院九十一年二月七日所召開之全國各級法院首長司法業務座談會之決議及九十一年四月二十五日台灣高等法院刑事庭長會議之決議，暨法務部九十一年三月七日九十一年度法檢字第九一０八００九四九號函之附件「檢察機關因應刑事訴訟法部分條文修正辦理事項參考原則」之內容為依據，目前整個聲請交付審判制度之運作尚稱正常順利。最重要者乃第六章，從實務面之角度切入，蒐集全國二十一個地方法院之交付審判裁定，探究其具體運作之結果，全面作綜合統計分析，結果在全國三０五二件聲請案中共有十九件裁准交付審判，佔0.62%，然與德國、日本之實務上之運作成效作比較，德、日實務運作核准率亦不高。再於第七章乃闡明我國現行交付審判制度規定學理上之缺失及實務運作上之困境，共提出十五個亟待檢討之問題，並與德、日立法例作比較法上之觀察。最後第八章乃歸納有關交付審判制度運作之利弊所在，並試圖提出未來修法時之可能對策，讓被害人之尊嚴及權益得以在刑事訴訟程序中獲得充分之尊重及保護，並藉此制度提昇我國被害人於刑事訴訟上之地位，也可以透過此制度使犯罪者無從僥倖，讓國家能公正的行使刑罰權，確實懲罰破壞社會秩序者。 關鍵詞： 法院審查制、強制起訴、準起訴、大陪審團、檢察審查會、人性尊嚴、假性財產犯罪。English Summary The motivation of writing this thesis is because many appealing cases for setting for trial managed by the writer are rejected. However, the persons involved are not convinced. This arouses the writer to probe into the depths of this system, including the process of its legislation, and the law-making and practical operation in foreign cases and the effect of domestic operation. As the research turns out, the persons who are not convinced have accepted it utterly. This proves that “The stones of those hills may be used to polish gems”. The thesis is divided into eight chapters. The first chapter mainly elucidates and summarizes the motive, goal, ways, method and range of the thesis’ research. In Chapter Two, the focus is put on the significance of setting for trial, theoretical basis, and function of procedures. Besides explaining the basic concept of setting for trial, an argument integrated by Germany, Japan and our theory is brought forth based on the legal trait for the system of setting for trial. In addition, a lawsuit in terms of constitution to defend the dignity of humanity serves as a perspective to explore the ground of theory of setting for trial. Then it further discusses the function of procedures of setting for trial in the hope to familiarize us with it. Next in Chapter Three, it discusses the legislative process of our nation’s setting for trial, including the legislative background at an initial stage—that is, our society does not have a long-term trust for justice in general; a civil call for reform in justice is continuous, resulting in the convention of a national meeting for reforming justice. This especially refers to the prosecutors’ abuse of uncharged staff’s rights to outer supervisory mechanism. Originally, it is suggested that Japan’s Examining Committee be introduced. However, the consensus fails to be reached in the final decision of National conference for reforming justice, followed by the Ministry of Justice’s offering to usher in the examining system from the courts of Germany and Japan. The Legislative Yuan passes it by Three Reading shortly after it, and changes to adopt Japan’s quasi-institution of a public action as well as Germany’s compulsory prosecution system. It also passes establishing a system for setting for trial. In the chapter, there is an introduction for the initial and final stage of the whole legislative process at that time. Moreover, in Chapter Four, which is based on the belief “The stones of those hills may be used to polish gems”, a further introduction is made from a comparison perspective regarding our emulation of Japan and Germany’s setting for trial. And it also introduces U.S. Grand Jury and Japan’s Examining Committee. As the research turns out, our nation indeed adopts a system that is appropriate to our country. Chapter Five discusses the practical working of this system in our nation. Because setting for trial is our new system, it is necessary to introduce its operation further. During our discussion, we may find out the problem of its operation. Currently, our nation’s operation is based on Judicial Yuan’s Meeting on February 7 , 2002 for the nationwide court’s chief and Forum on judicial business, as well as Taiwan’s Superior Court’s criminal chief judge’s decision on April 25, 2002, and also Ministry of Justice’s No. 910800949 attached letter of March 7, 2002—A reference principle for prosecutors’ institution to manage affairs corresponding to the modification of partial criminal litigation act. Currently, the entire operation of setting for trial goes smoothly. The most important part is Chapter Six, whose point of view is from the aspect of practical operation. And it amasses the information about the decision of setting for trial from twenty-one local courts nationwide. This chapter will explore the effect of its concrete operation and analyze it synthetically with statistics. The analysis turns out that there are 19 cases out of 3052 appealing cases nationwide that are allowed for setting for trial, which takes up 0.62 percentage. However, compared to the effect of Germany and Japan’s practical operation, they do not have a high ratifying rate in practical operation. Furthermore, in Chapter Seven, the thesis elaborates on the theoretical deficiency in our current system of setting for trial and our nation’s predicament in practical operation. There are fifteen questions raised in total that are desperate to be examined and compared with the instances of lawmaking in Germany and Japan for comparative observation. Finally, Chpater Eight summarizes the advantages and disadvantages about the system of setting for trial. It attempts to offer a possible strategy for modifying law in the future, allowing the victims’ dignity and benefits to be fully respected and protected during a criminal litigation as well as enhancing their status in criminal lawsuit. This may prevent those perpetrators from escaping luckily and allow the country to fairly execute its penal rights by punishing those who break our social order. Key Words: Court’s Examining System, Compulsory Prosecution, Quasi-institution of a public action, Grand Jury, Examination Committee, Human Dignity, Fake Property Crime.目　　　錄 口試委員會審定書...........................................i 誌謝......................................................ii 中文摘要..................................................iv 英文摘要..................................................vi 第一章　緒論...............................................1 　　第一節　問題背景與研究動機.............................1 　　第二節　研究範圍、目的與架構...........................5 　　第三節　研究方法與研究限制............................17 　　第四節　本文結構......................................19 第二章　交付審判制度之概說................................23 　　第一節　交付審判制度之意義............................23 　　第二節　交付審判制度之法律性質........................24 　　第三節　交付審判制度之理論基礎........................28 　　　　第一項　基於犯罪被害人權益之保護..................28 　　　　第二項　憲法上之依據..............................30 　　　　第三項　基於正當法律程序之要求....................36 　　　　第四項　基於人性尊嚴之原則........................38 　　第四節　交付審判制度程序上之功能......................41 　　　　第一項　檢察官不起訴職權有效監督之必要性..........41 　　　　第二項　確保被害人之程序利益......................43 　　　　第三項　增進百姓對檢察官處分之信賴度..............43 第三章　我國交付審判制度立法經過之梗概....................47 　　第一節　交付審判制度之立法背景........................47 　　第二節　對於檢察官不起訴處分外部監督機制之爭論........50 　　第三節　全國司法改革會議之決議........................55 第四章　交付審判制度之立法例..............................57 　　第一節　前言..........................................57 　　第二節　德國立法例─強制起訴制度......................57 　　　　第一項　立法理由及目的............................58 　　　　第二項　運作之程序................................59 　　　　　　第一款　再議之制度............................59 　　　　　　第二款　強制起訴制度..........................60 　　　　　　　　第一目　聲請人............................61 　　　　　　　　第二目　聲請之程序........................61 　　　　　　　　第三目　管轄法院..........................63 　　　　　　　　第四目　法院審查之程序....................63 　　　　　　　　第五目　法院審查之結果....................64 　　　　　　　　第六目　強制起訴之撤回....................67 　　　　　　　　第七目　救濟之途徑........................67 　　　　　　　　第八目　訴訟費用之規定....................68 　　第三節　日本立法例─準起訴制度........................68 　　　　第一項　立法理由及目的............................69 　　　　第二項　運作之程序................................70 　　　　　　第一款　再議之制度............................70 　　　　　　第二款　準起訴制度............................71 　　　　　　　　第一目　聲請人............................71 　　　　　　　　第二目　聲請之程序........................71 　　　　　　　　第三目　管轄法院..........................72 　　　　　　　　第四目　法院審查之程序....................72 　　　　　　　　第五目　法院審查之結果....................73 　　　　　　　　第六目　準起訴之撤回......................76 　　　　　　　　第七目　救濟之途徑........................77 　　　　　　　　第八目　訴訟費用之規定....................77 　　第四節　日本檢察審查會................................78 　　　　第一項　制度設立之緣由............................78 　　　　第二項　制度設立之目的............................79 　　　　第三項　檢察審查會之設置、審查程序及決議之效力....79 　　　　　　第一款　檢察審查會之設置......................80 　　　　　　第二款　檢察審查會之審查程序..................80 　　　　　　第三款　檢察審查會之決議之效力................81 　　第五節　美國大陪審團制度..............................81 　　　　第一項　制度設立之緣由............................81 　　　　第二項　制度設立之法理基礎........................82 　　　　第三項　程序之功能................................83 　　　　第四項　運作之程序................................83 　　　　第五項　運作之績效................................84 第五章　我國交付審判制度之體系............................85 　　第一節　前言..........................................85 　　第二節　運作之程序....................................85 　　　　第一項　聲請人....................................85 　　　　第二項　聲請之程序................................86 　　　　　　第一款　再議前置程序..........................86 　　　　　　第二款　理由要式性............................86 　　　　　　第三款　律師強制代理主義......................87 　　　　第三項　管轄法院..................................87 　　第三節　法院之審查程序................................88 　　　　第一項　審查之程序與標準..........................88 　　　　　　第一款　法院之組織............................89 　　　　　　第二款　法院之審查程序........................90 　　　　　　　　第一目　調查證據之範圍....................91 　　　　　　　　第二目　應如何調查證據....................93 　　　　　　第三款　合法性之審查..........................96 　　　　　　第四款　有無理由之審查........................97 　　　　　　　　第一目　審查之範圍........................97 　　　　　　　　第二目　審查之標準........................98 　　第四節　交付審判之撤回................................98 　　　　第一項　聲請後裁定前之撤回........................99 　　　　　　第一款　告訴人之撤回告訴......................99 　　　　　　　　第一目　告訴人與聲請人非同一人............99 　　　　　　　　第二目　告訴人與聲請人為同一人...........100 　　　　　　第二款　聲請人之撤回聲請.....................100 　　　　第二項　裁定交付審判後第一審辯論終結前之撤回.....102 　　　　　　第一款　告訴人之撤回告訴.....................102 　　　　　　第二款　檢察官之撤回公訴.....................102 　　　　　　第三款　聲請人之撤回聲請.....................105 　　第五節　交付審判法院裁定准許之效力...................106 　　　　第一項　視為提起公訴.............................106 　　　　　　第一款　交付審判法院裁定准許之法律效力.......107 　　　　　　第二款　交付審判與起訴審查程序之關係.........108 　　　　第二項　審判章節規定之適用.......................109 　　　　第三項　檢察官於審判中之角色.....................110 　　第六節　交付審判法院裁定駁回之效力...................112 　　第七節　救濟之途徑...................................113 　　　　第一項　駁回後之救濟.............................113 　　　　第二項　裁定交付審判後之救濟.....................114 第六章　我國交付審判制度實務運作成效之分析...............117 　　第一節　我國二十一個地方法院終結情形之分析...........117 　　第二節　城鄉法院差異之分析...........................120 　　第三節　案件罪名之分析...............................122 　　第四節　經裁定駁回原因之分析.........................137 　　第五節　經裁定駁回案例之分析.........................145 　　　　第一項　法院辦理刑事訴訟案件應行注意事項.........145 　　　　第二項　案例之分析...............................146 　　　　第三項　小結.....................................159 　　第六節　經裁定准許案例之分析.........................160 　　　　第一項　裁准件數及罪名之統計分析.................160 　　　　第二項　案例之分析...............................164 　　　　第三項　小結.....................................185 　　第七節　我國與德、日實務運作成效之比較分析...........185 　　　　第一項　德國實務運作之成效.......................185 　　　　第二項　日本實務運作之成效.......................186 　　　　第三項　我國實務運作之成效.......................187 第七章　我國交付審判制度之缺失與因應.....................189 　　第一節　我國交付審判制度之缺失.......................189 　　　　第一項　無犯罪被害人之案件無法監督...............189 　　　　第二項　違背控訴原則之法理.......................190 　　　　第三項　假性財產犯罪案件浪費司法資源.............191 　　第二節　交付審判制度缺失之因應.......................191 　　　　第一項　緩起訴處分適用上應限制...................191 　　　　第二項　課以訴訟費用擔保之考量...................193 　　　　第三項　兩級再議制度之修正.......................194 　　　　第四項　律師強制代理制度之檢討...................195 　　　　第五項　管轄法院規定之修正.......................196 　　　　第六項　增訂訴訟參加制度之可能性.................197 　　　　第七項　視為已提起公訴之再思考...................198 　　　　第八項　被告聽審請求權之保障.....................199 　　　　第九項　裁定交付審判後撤回規定之修正.............200 　　　　第十項　救濟規定之修正...........................202 　　　　第十一項　適用審判章節規定之疑義.................203 　　　　第十二項　裁定交付審判後由自訴制度接軌之考量.....203 第八章　結論.............................................207 　　第一節　研究結論.....................................208 　　第二節　研究建議.....................................216 參考文獻.................................................219 表目錄 　表6-1　全國法院聲請交付審判案件統計表..................119 　表6-2　全國法院聲請交付審判案件城鄉差異區分表..........121 　表6-3　基隆地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表........122 　表6-4　台北地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表........123 　表6-5　士林地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表........124 　表6-6　板橋地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表........125 　表6-7　桃園地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表........126 　表6-8　新竹地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表........127 　表6-9　苗栗地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表........128 　表6-10　台中地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......129 　表6-11　彰化法院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......130 　表6-12　南投地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......131 　表6-13　雲林地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......131 　表6-14　台南地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......132 　表6-15　高雄地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......133 　表6-16　澎湖地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......134 　表6-17　屏東地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......134 　表6-18　花蓮地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......135 　表6-19　宜蘭地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......135 　表6-20　金門地院聲請交付審判案件經駁回罪名區分表.......136 　表6-21　全國法院聲請交付審判經駁回罪名統計表...........136 　表6-22　基隆地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............137 　表6-23　台北地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............138 　表6-24　士林地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............138 　表6-25　板橋地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............139 　表6-26　桃園地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............139 　表6-27　新竹地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............139 　表6-28　苗栗地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............140 　表6-29　台中地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............140 　表6-30　南投地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............140 　表6-31　彰化地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............141 　表6-32　雲林地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............141 　表6-33　台南地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............141 　表6-34　澎湖地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............142 　表6-35　高雄地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............142 　表6-36　屏東地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............142 　表6-37　花蓮地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............143 　表6-38　宜蘭地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............143 　表6-39　金門地院聲請案件經駁回原因統計表...............143 　表6-40　我國法院聲請交付審判案件經裁准或駁回原因統計表.144 　表6-41　我國聲請交付審判案件裁准件數統計表.............162 　表6-42　我國聲請交付審判案件裁准罪名統計表.............1633742361 bytesapplication/pdfen-US法院審查制、強制起訴、準起訴、大陪審團、檢察審查會、人性尊嚴、假性財產犯罪。Court’s Examining System, Compulsory Prosecution, Quasi-institution of a public action, Grand Jury, Examination Committee, Human Dignity, Fake Property Crime.[SDGs]SDG16thesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/57201/1/ntu-95-P93341020-1.pdf