「供出毒品來源」供述證據補強法則之檢證──以販賣毒品既遂案件為中心

Reviewing Corroboration Rule in“Confession of Drug Source”: Focus on Drug Trafficking Cases

2019年9月16日監察院公布調查報告，認為實務適用毒品危害防制條例第17條第1項「供出毒品來源」供述證據補強法則有所歧異，建請提案刑事大法庭統一見解。對此，本文從毒品政策與刑事證據法交錯的視角出發，以證據法為減害方案橋接程序法補償法理，探討最高法院相關判決予以回應。在建構該補強法則論理後，說明供述證據相互補強邏輯、減刑與證據法關係、真實性及憑信性區分。接著以販賣毒品既遂案件為對象，澄清補強證據在對話證據（監聽譯文及通訊軟體截圖）及環境證據（磅秤與分裝袋、驗尿報告）利用的若干誤解。

September 16, 2019, the Control Yuan released an investigation report, arguing that there are discrepancies in the practical application of the corroboration rule in“Confession of Drug Source”within Article 17, Item 1 of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act. In this regard, from the perspective of the intersection of drug policy and criminal evidence law, this paper takes evidence law as the harm reduction scheme to bridge the jurisprudence of procedural law compensation, and discusses relevant Supreme Court judgments. After constructing the theory of the corroboration rule, explaining the mutual corroboration logic of testimony, the relationship between commutation and evidence law, and the distinction between authenticity and credibility. Then, taking the drug trafficking cases as the object, clarifying some misunderstandings in the use of corroboration evidence in dialogue evidence (translation about interception of communications and screenshots of communication software) and environmental evidence (scales and bags, urine test report).