國民法官法之起訴狀一本主義機能初探

Preliminary Study on Functions of the Principle of Unitary Information Under the Citizen Judges Act

國民法官法第43條關於起訴狀一本主義之規定，雖係參考日本刑事訴訟法第256條第6項而來，然兩者除法條結構有所不同外，主要存在日本關於起訴狀一本主義之要求，同時兼及一般刑事審判及裁判員裁判，然我國僅國民參與審判有適用，以及我國於制定國民法官法時，雖大幅參考日本裁判員參與刑事裁判法之規定，並引進起訴狀一本主義，然未同時併採訴因制度等關鍵差異。為了解起訴狀一本主義於國民法官法下應有之機能，特別係起訴書記載應遵循之方針，本文嘗試由日本創設起訴狀一本主義及訴因制度之背景切入，並比較我國與日本之制度差異可能產生之影響，最後得出起訴狀一本主義在我國法制現況下，不宜以公平法院之預斷防止機能進行思考，而應以維持職業法官與國民法官間之資訊平等為主要考量，並依起訴書記載違反相關規定之態樣，課予不同法效。

Article 43 of the Citizen Judges Act on“the principle of unitary information”refers to Article 256(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Japan. However, the legal structure of the two is different, and Japan’s general criminal trials and cases with the participation of citizen judges all apply“the principle of unitary information”, but in our country it only applies to cases with the participation of citizen judges. Moreover, the concept of“count”was not adopted simultaneously in the formulation of the Citizen Judges Act. In order to understand the function of“the principle of unitary information”under the Citizen Judges Act, especially the policy that the record of indictments should follow, this paper attempts to start from the background of the establishment of“the principle of unitary information”and“the count system”in Japan, and analyze the possible impact of system differences between Taiwan and Japan. Finally, it is concluded that under the current legal system in our country, the purpose of“the principle of unitary information”is not to prevent the prejudgment of a fair court, but to maintain the information equality between professional judges and citizen judges. In addition, different legal effects are given according to the indictment records in violation of the relevant provisions.