| dc.contributor | 政大法學評論 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | 王士帆 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | Wang, Shih-Fan | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2023-09 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 5-Dec-2023 09:21:57 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 5-Dec-2023 09:21:57 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 5-Dec-2023 09:21:57 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148577 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 最高法院110年度臺上大字第2943號刑事裁定，乃針對《通保法》第5條第4項期中報告義務與違反時的後續證據使用禁止疑義而來。本文認為，鑑於《通保法》第18條之1第3項所稱「違反第5條規定」限縮解釋，應排除違反第5條第4項期中報告義務規定，故繼續監聽之內容，依《刑事訴訟法》第158條之4審酌個案之證據能力。不同於實務舊說拘泥於《通保法》第18條之1第3項文義，刑事大法庭亦接受《刑事訴訟法》第158條之4的適用可能性，終而對《通保法》第18條之1第3項「違反第5條規定」採取限縮解釋。不過，刑事大法庭之限縮解釋，乃分割成「完全未製作期中報告」和「其他違法情狀」，前者仍適用《通保法》第18條之1第3項，僅後者才適用《刑事訴訟法》第158條之4。據此，本文基於體系解釋之內在和諧與證據使用禁止層級化所提出的質疑與批評，亦同樣指向刑事大法庭。惟平心而論，刑事大法庭雖採取分割說，但至少未沿襲實務舊說，貢獻的法律見解終究是進步的。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | Article 5 (4) of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act stipulates that the enforcement authority shall file at least one report every 15 days during communication surveillance, describing the progress of conducting the surveillance and/or if it is necessary to continue implementing it. The Supreme Court (110) Tai-shang-da Tzu No. 2943 comes from the doubts about the use of evidence in the case of violating the midterm report obligation. This article believes that given the narrow interpretation of“violation of Article 5”in Article 18-1 (3) of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act and the exclusion of violations of Article 5 (4) of the midterm report obligation, the content of continued surveillance should apply to the Article 158-4 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Although the Criminal Grand Chamber also accepted the possibility of application of Article 158-4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it finally adopted a narrow interpretation of Article 18-1 (3) of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act. However, his interpretation is divided into“completely unproduced midterm report”and“other illegal circumstances”; the former is still subject to Article 18-1(3) of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act, and only the latter is subject to Article 158-4 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the questions and criticisms raised in this paper based on the internal harmony of the system interpretation and the prohibition of hierarchical use of evidence also point to the Criminal Grand Chamber. But in all fairness, the Criminal Grand Chamber at least does not follow the old practice, and the contributed legal insights are progressive after all. | |
| dc.format.extent | 2902009 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 政大法學評論, 174, 165-216 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 通訊監察; 期中報告; 證據排除; 證據禁止; 刑事大法庭 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Communication Surveillance; Midterm Report; Exclusion of Evidence; Prohibition of Evidence (Beweisverbot); Criminal Grand Chamber | |
| dc.title (題名) | 通訊監察之期中報告義務──評最高法院110年度臺上大字第2943號刑事裁定 | |
| dc.title (題名) | Midterm Report of Communication Surveillance: Comment on the Supreme Court (110) Tai-shang-da Tzu No. 2943 | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
| dc.identifier.doi (DOI) | 10.53106/102398202023090174003 | |
| dc.doi.uri (DOI) | https://dx.doi.org/10.53106/102398202023090174003 | |
