論國民參與刑事審判制度之第二審上訴制度構造-以日本裁判員法及我國國民參審試行條例草案為對象

Abstract

現行刑事第二審上訴制度多年來屢見改革呼聲，其中有主張改為事後審制者，我國國民參審試行條例草案以此為據，擬定在第一審刑事審判行國民參審者，第二審改採事後審制，此一改革非但在國民參審制度下有探討之必要，亦可供日後修正刑事上訴制度之參考；又根據直接審理原則及國民參審制度下第二審得以撤銷原審判決之正當性依據，逐一檢視覆審制、續審制、事後審制並斟酌其利弊得失後，法律審兼事實審之事後審制確可平衡追求上訴制度及國民參審制度之目的，值得贊成，日本裁判員法立法過程中雖然亦採此一見解，但因日本刑事上訴制度實際運作結果已非正統事後審制，故抄襲日本現有規定，無法達成事後審制之要求，而仍應本於事後審制之精神，於法制上進行相關修正。

The voices of reform of the current second instance of the criminal trial system is a common occurrence; among the voices some address the reviewing court system. The regulation of Civil Trial in this country according to those opinions legislate those trials held in civil court in the first instance will be tried by reviewing court in the second instance. But this reform not only must be conferred in the case of civil trial, but also in the case of the reform of the criminal appeals system in the future. According to the principle of direct trial and the propriety of reversing the first instance judgment from the civil court by the second instance court, a survey the reviewing court system, continuative trial system and trial de novo, and considering the advantages and disadvantages of these systems, I approve of the reviewing court system, because this system can retain a balance between the criminal appeal system and civil system. In addition, the legislation of the act of Referee in Japan also adopts a similar system, but actually the operating of the criminal appeal system in Japan is no longer a legitimate reviewing court system. Plagiarizing the regulations of Japan will not obtain the request of the reviewing court system. On the contrary, we should amend the regulations with the spirit of the reviewing court system.