查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 刑事訴訟法第四百二十條第一項第六款確實之新證據--現行法之檢討與修正草案的檢視
- 從一事不再理原則談案件的單一性與同一性
- 訴訟標的理論在實務上之適用與評析
- 民事訴訟與行政訴訟之分工與合作(下)--專業審判與權利有效救濟間之選擇
- 民事訴訟與行政訴訟之分工與合作(上)--專業審判與權利有效救濟間之選擇
- 程序重新、訴願再審與再審之訴--兼評臺北市政府九十一年十月十六日府復字第○九一一九○二七五○一號復審決定
- 犯罪之競合與刑事裁判確定的效力
- 第三審許可上訴制之探討--以通常訴訟事件為中心及著重於「原則上重要性」之標準建立
- 掙開刑事再審判例的鎖鏈?/中高院102聲再132裁定
- 臺灣再審制度的檢討與革新[座談會會議紀錄]
第1筆 /總和 1 筆
/ 1 筆
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 刑事訴訟法第四百二十條第一項第六款確實之新證據--現行法之檢討與修正草案的檢視="Conclusive New Evidence" on Article 420I(6) of Criminal Procedure Law--Comment on Current Law and Analysis of Draft Amendment |
---|---|
作 者 | 王容溥; | 書刊名 | 東吳法律學報 |
卷 期 | 17:3 民95.04 |
頁 次 | 頁81-138 |
分類號 | 587.845 |
關鍵詞 | 再審; 確實新證據; 新規性; 明確性; 實體真實發現; 法安定性; 實體確定力; 既判力; 一事不再理; 有疑唯利被告利益原則; 罪疑唯輕原則; 有疑唯利既判力; 單獨評價; 綜合評價; 證據構造; Retrial; Conclusive new evidence; Novelty; Authenticity; Substantive justice; Substantial true; Res judicata; Neb is in idem; Non bis in idem; In dubio pro reo; In dubio contra reum; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 長久以來,再審制度被視為是排除既判力的一種制度,因此,為了維持法的安定性,通常認為對本條(§420I⑥)所稱確實之新證據應採限縮的解釋。然而,此種解釋將導致無辜之人於確定判決後實質救濟的途徑遭到閉塞。事實上,由實體真實發現與法安定性的思想基礎與兩者間之關係來看,在為受判決人之利益聲請再審時應以實體真實的發現為優先,故關於確實的新證據也應該採取寬鬆的解釋,儘量地放寬本條之適用始妥。所謂的「新證據」應僅指法院未曾判斷的證據,「確實」則指綜合評價新、舊證據後對原確定判決產生合理的懷疑而言。二○○四年一月七日刑事訴訟法修正草案大致採取相同的見解,可惜草案對於許多重要的問題並未言及。因此,本文希望藉由對刑事訴訟法確實之新證據的討論,為現行不合理的制度修正提供催生的理論基礎。 |
英文摘要 | For a long time, retrial system only regards as one kind of system to remove res judicata. In order to maintain the stabilization of law, the so-called "conclusive new evidence" of this provision (§420I(6)) is adopted narrower explanation. However, this explanation will cause the situation that innocent person can't obtain substantive remedy after definitive judgment. In fact, through the rationale and relation of substantive justice and stabilization of law, substantial true discovery is in the first place when applying a retrial for the benefit of defendant. Therefore, we ought to adopt broader explanation concerning conclusive new evidence, as broad as possible to the application of this provision. "New evidence" only means the evidence that courts of justice have never judged, and "conclusive" means that Judge has reasonable doubt about definitive judgment after synthetically evaluation. For the most part, criminal procedure law draft amendment promulgated in January 7 2004 also held the same opinion. But it's a pity that the draft amendment doesn't mention many other important issues. The point of this article is to discuss "conclusive new evidence" for the amendment of unreasonable retrial system in current law. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。