{"subject":"檢察官就被告具「累犯事實」及「加重量刑事項」之舉證或說明責任──以最高法院刑事大法庭110年度臺上大字第5660號裁定為中心","dataClassName":null,"pubUnitName":"科技法律研究所","posterDate":null,"updateDate":null,"detailContent":"<span style=\"font-size:115%;\"><strong><span style=\"color:#993300;\">Prosecutors Shall Bear the Burden of Proof with the Obligation for Providing Clear Explanations of&ldquo;Facts for Repeated Offending&rdquo;and&ldquo;Crimes that Should Be Aggregated&rdquo;: Centered on&ldquo;110 Year Taishang Dazi No. 5660&rdquo;Ruling of the Supreme Court of Taiwan</span></strong></span><br />\r\n<span style=\"font-size:100%;\"><strong>作者：</strong>邱忠義<br />\r\n<strong>出版年月：</strong>202209<br />\r\n<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>改良式當事人進行主義；累犯；舉證責任；說明責任；嚴格證明；Modified Adversary System；Repeated Offending；Burden of Proof；Provide；Rule of Strict Proof</span><br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong><span style=\"background-color:#f1c40f;\">中文摘要</span></strong><br />\r\n臺灣司法實務雖早已改採改良式當事人進行主義，惟仍有若干思維殘存糾問主義色彩，尤其是對被告不利益之事項，仍遺留著職權進行主義之餘威。以累犯為例，司法實務向認為關於被告具有「累犯事實」以及「應加重量刑之事項」，屬於法院認定事實與適用法律之基礎事項，客觀上有調查之必要性，法院「應」依職權加以調查。惟最高法院刑事大法庭 110 年度臺上大字第 5660 號裁定，藉助於司法院釋字第 775 號解釋所蘊涵的司法改革理路，做出震撼性的宣告：上開累犯事項，應分別由檢察官負舉證、說明責任。此一裁定，雖是最高法院擺脫職權進行主義舊例的一小步，但已足以將司法改革之路往前推進一大步。<br />\r\n<br />\r\n<strong><span style=\"background-color:#f1c40f;\">英文摘要</span></strong><br />\r\nAlthough the &ldquo;modified adversary system&rdquo; has been adopted by Taiwan&rsquo;s criminal practice for a long while, somewhat extents of the &ldquo;inquisitorial system&rdquo; remain. In particular, the &ldquo;inquisitorial system&rdquo; still shadows matters disadvantaged to the defendant. Using a repeated offender as an example, in Taiwan&rsquo;s judicial practice, it is believed that &ldquo;facts for repeated offending&rdquo; and &ldquo;crimes that should be aggregated&rdquo; are basic matters that the court shall know for determining the facts and applying laws. Thus, it is believed that the court &ldquo;shall&rdquo; investigate these basic matters ex officio. However, the &ldquo;110 Year Taishang Dazi No. 5660&rdquo; ruling of the Supreme Court of Taiwan, which incorporated the judicial reform rationale given in &ldquo;Judicial Yuan&rsquo;s interpretation No. 755,&rdquo; surprisingly stated that, regarding the above two basic matters for the repeated offenders, prosecutors shall bear the bur-den of proof with the obligation for providing clear explanations. Though this rul-ing may be merely a small step for the Taiwan Supreme Court to get rid of the &ldquo;in-quisitorial system&rdquo;, it is enough to push the Taiwanese judicial reform to make a giant step","summary":"","liaisonper":null,"liaisontel":null,"liaisonfax":null,"liaisonemail":null,"docs":[{"fileurl":"https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396816970225029120&type=s","pdffileurl":"","odffileurl":"","expFile":"檢察官就被告具「累犯事實」及「加重量刑事項」之舉證或說明責任──以最高法院刑事大法庭110年度臺上大字第5660號裁定為中心"}],"images":[],"videos":[],"audios":[],"resources":[]}