論被告偵訊中錄影錄音證據之容許性：以日本裁判員裁判之今市事件判決為素材

The Permissibility of the Audio and Video Evidence of the Defendant’s Confessions During Interrogation: A Japanese Judgment“IMAICHI Case”as a Source

我國刑訴法中有規定偵查中詢問或訊問被告，均應連續錄音必要時並應全程連續錄影，用以確認自白的任意性或是比對被告偵訊筆錄的正確性，鮮少將其直接作為證明犯罪事實之實質證據或輔助證據使用。但在國民法官法施行細則第120條已有規範以審判外被告接受詢問或訊問所為供述之錄音、錄影作為證據使用之狀況，國官法模擬法庭中亦有當事人聲請使用此類證據。然此種偵訊中的影音資料作為證據，係過去卷證併送制度下較無發生的狀況，如何決定其證據的容許性（包含證據能力與必要性），也是將來國民法官法法庭中的新挑戰。本文嘗試以日本法為比較對象，在分析其數個重要判決及學說上的演變後，分別論述此種證據作為(1)實質證據與(2)輔助證據使用之容許性，以及可能的理論架構。

The Criminal Procedure Law of Taiwan stipulates that the interrogation of a defendant should be continuously recorded and, if necessary, continuously videotaped to confirm the voluntariness of any confession or to compare the accuracy of the defendant’s interrogation transcript. During bench trials, using such audio and video recordings as substantive or supporting evidence to establish the facts of the crime was infrequent.
Nonetheless, Article 120 of the Enforcement Rules of the Citizen Judges Act addresses the use of audio and video recordings of a defendant’s interrogation confessions outside the trial setting. The assessment of the admissibility of this type of evidence, encompassing its evidentiary value and necessity, poses a new challenge in the future courts operating under the Citizen Judges Act. This article aims to scrutinize several significant decisions and doctrinal changes in Japanese law to deliberate on the permissibility of utilizing such evidence as(1) substantive evidence and (2) supporting evidence, and to propose a plausible theoretical framework.