Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: 論經驗法則
Other Titles: Erfahrungssätze
Authors: 姜世明
Chiang, Shyf-Ming
Contributors: 法律系
Keywords: 蓋然性;經驗法則;經驗原則;證據評價;自由心證
Free assessment;Experience;Probabilistic;Burden of proof;Evaluation of evidence
Date: 2009.02
Issue Date: 2014-09-30 17:48:47 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 經驗法則係證據法上之核心議題,有關自由心證、間接證明及表見證明等制度均有賴經驗法則之確立乃得被適切地運用。若未能對於經驗法則概念為適當地釐清,即甚易造成各法官因對於經驗法則之評價不同,而造成類似案情,卻有不同判決結論之情形。而此一情形,適即為自由心證被詬病之重要理由之一。在我國,雖對於經驗法則之研究,已有學者提出重要之見解。實務上亦經常以之作為認定事實之推理基礎。但對於經驗法則是否存在不同類型態樣,亦即可否依據蓋然性高低而對其進行有意義之分類,並進而使其可在認定事實中具有不同功能,卻仍屬我國法上可進一步發展之領域。本文擬藉助德國文獻,並參考國內學者見解及實務判決,歸納、演繹與分析,期對於經驗法則層次化及其運用合理化之可能性進行較完整之評估。尤其本文將對於實務上對於通姦案型之事實認定,進行分析,期對於此一經常受到質疑之判決認事程序類型,提出解決之道。末並將提出對於判決論理結構之建議,盼能有助於加強實務判決認事程序之透明性及可檢驗性。
In Taiwan, historical studies on the rule of experience (Emperical Rule, Erfahrungssätze) have enabled some scholars to propose important insights in perspective, and the rule is also frequently embedded in the fundamental reasoning of the fact-finding process in trial practice. Nevertheless, in terms of Taiwan’s legal regime, further developments are desired and awaited as to whether and how the rule of experience can be divided into different classifications and patterns, i.e., whether meaningful classifications can be performed based on the probabilities spectrum, with each classification exerting different functionalities in the fact-finding process.This thesis deals with these issues by methodologies of induction, deduction and critical analysis, with reference being made to the German legal literature as well as perspectives from Taiwan’s scholarly writings and jurisprudence. It aims to drill down a comprehensive review over the hierarchy and possibilities of rational application of the rule of experience. In particular, by way of analyzing the judicial practice in adultery cases, this thesis endeavors to offer solutions to the oft-cited challenges posed to the fact-finding process in such case patterns. Lastly, this thesis provides recommendations to formulate a logical framework to be employed in judicial decisions, in the hope of strengthening the transparency and verifiability of the fact-finding process in the judicial practice.
Relation: 法學評論, 107 , 1- 81
Data Type: article
Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 期刊論文
[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
1-81.pdf977KbAdobe PDF9056View/Open

All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing