刑事審判中補強法則之研究──以被害人陳述為中心

On the study of Corroborative Rules in the Criminal Trial--Take the description of the victims as an example

補強法則係指某種單一證據不得作為認定被告有罪之唯一證據，而需另有補強證據之法則。在現代自由心證證據制度下，法律通常對於證據證明力不另外加以限制，而委由審判者自由裁量。然而，自由心證帶有裁判者主觀不確定性，容易導致誤判，此種情形在面對可疑證言中尤為嚴重，因此需要對此些可信性具有高度危險的證據加以適當限制，而補強法則即為對於自由心證的約束機制，其對於避免誤判以及遏阻國家不法取證具有積極且重大的功能。除了特殊立法政策考量以外，補強法則主要是用來擔保可疑證言的可信性。對於這些可疑證言要求要有補強的規定，是由於此種可疑證言之可信性的危險足以影響到判決正確性，且又無法經由現存的配套制度有效檢驗證言的真實性，因此政府便統一擬制該可疑證言的證明力不足以支持整個待證事實，而被限制必須要以其他獨立的證據加以補強。
在我國實體法中所規定的自白以及共犯自白的補強方面，由於其除了擔保該供述的可信性以外，尚有避免實務過度偏重自白的目的存在，也因此對於自白的補強，應該跳脫自白的框架，尋求其他的人證物證作為補強。基此，在自白補強中，補強範圍除犯罪客觀要素以外，尚包含被告與行為人同一性的證明；而在證明程度方面，應認為補強證據本身須具有獨立的證明力，而不能僅依附在自白之下。至於共犯自白，原則上也應該與被告自白作相同解釋，並且不得以複數的自白相互補強，否則無法達到補強法則所欲追求的目的。
在超法規補強法則方面，在被害人證言以及秘密證人部分，本文認為補強法則的目的僅在於保障該證言的真實性，因此對於補強法則之操作採取較為寬鬆的見解，在補強範圍以及補強程度上則採實質說以及相對說即為以足。而在類似共犯結構證言的補強中，由於其除了確保證言真實性以外，尚有避免國家機關違法取供的目的存在，因此其補強法則之操作，應類推適用刑事訴訟法第156條第2項共犯自白的補強規定，採嚴格之認定。

The Corroborative Rule is refers to, when the defendant’s confessions or other suspicious testimony become the only unfavorable evidence for defendant bearing the crime, jury cannot only base on the evidence to sentence the defendant as guilt, and there must be other evidences to reinforce the probative force of the evidence. In the modern system of discretionary evaluation of evidence, the law generally does not regulate the probative force of evidence, and entrusting to discretion of judge. However, the discretionary evaluation inevitably has judges’ subjective uncertainty, and easily leads to misjudgment, so there must be appropriate limitations to discretionary evaluation. The Corroborative Rule is the restraint mechanism for discretionary evidence, and it is significance and positive in preventing misjudgment and curbing the illegal collection of evidence.
In addition to special legislative policy considerations, the Corroborative Rule provides for additional substantiating corroborative evidentiary requirements which are primarily used to guarantee the credibility of suspicious testimony. In regard to suspicious testimony, the legal provisions requiring corroborating evidence stem from concern that the credibility of the testimony is suspicious enough as to affect the correctness of the judgment, and because the existing evidentiary systems cannot appropriately test the authenticity of the testimony, so the Government provides that suspicious testimony lacks probative force to substantiate the entire facts to be proven, and hence must be restricted by the requirement of producing other independent corroborating evidence.
In Taiwan’s statutory law regarding corroboration of Confessions and Accomplice Confessions, the two purposes of requiring corroboration are to further substantiate the credibility of the confession, and to avoid excessive dependence on obtaining confessions in practice, and thus in regard to corroboration substantiating the confession, additional evidence should highlight facts outside the scope of the confession, seeking other witnesses and evidence in corroboration.
Thus, in respect of corroborating confessions, the scope of corroboration must satisfy proving the objective elements of the crime as well as substantiating the identity of the defendant; while in terms of proof, the corroborating evidence shall be considered as corroborative evidence only when it possesses independent probative force, and not merely through reliance on the confession(s). As for accomplice confessions, in principle, they should also be interpreted in like manner to the defendant confession, and not be permitted mutual corroboration as a result solely from the multiplicity of confessions, otherwise it is impossible to achieve the evidentiary jurisprudential objectives sought by the Corroborative Rule.
In regard to the extra-statutory Corroborative Rule, in respect to the testimony of the victim and any secret witnesses, this study proposes that the purpose of the Corroborative rule is limited to corroborating the reliability of the evidence, and hence adopts a lenient approach to the operational aspects of such corroboration, such that in terms of the scope of corroboration it shall be sufficient to obtain the substantive statement, and as to the extent of corroboration it shall be sufficient to obtain any relative statement; while in regard to corroborating testimony affecting “apparently criminal organizations”, besides ensuring corroboration of the reliability of the evidence, there remains the need to ensure minimization of illegal extraction of evidence by the authorities, thus, in terms of the Corroborative rule, analogous application of Article 156 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedural Law which provides for additional evidentiary corroboration of accomplice confessions, should be adopted, and interpreted ,strictly applied.