日本裁判員制度品格證據之舉證基準－－兼論國民法官法品格證據之適用

The Evidence of Character in the Citizen Judges Act

為使國民與法官共同參與刑事審判，提升司法透明度，反映國民正當法律感情，增進國民對於司法之瞭解及信賴，我國於2023年1月正式施行國民法官制度。在國民法官制度施行的今日，由於國民法官不會事先接觸卷證，是在審判程序中，藉由法庭提出之證據，以耳聽目視即知其義方式認定犯罪事實。不過，就以前科資料之品格證據作為認定犯罪事實而言，由於該前科證據係基於缺乏實證根據的人格評價，而有導致錯誤事實認定之虞。若將其提出於審判程序中，因為具有使法律素人國民法官陷於錯誤認定犯罪事實危險性較高，於準備程序中，法院進行證據裁定時，可能會面臨法院應如何就被告具有前科等類似事實進行證據裁定？而被告之先前同種類型之前科，或者類似事實、性格證據等，是否得以用來作為認定本案犯罪之主要事實舉證之用？
基此，本文先分析日本法對於裁判員案件中，法院就證據調查必要性所為證據裁定之判斷基準，分析其利弊得失後，提出符合當事人進行主義架構下之證據裁定基準。其次，藉由參考日本法制中，關於法院於準備程序中，面對檢察官聲請調查被告過去所為之犯罪事實，例如前科證據及類似事實證據時，應如何進行證據裁定。具體而言，本文將聚焦在以類似事實證據作為犯人同一性的舉證、主觀要素的證明等，並就使用類似事實證據等具體個案事實進行討論後，提出本文對於國民法官法制中，應如何以類似事實證據作為犯罪事實認定之舉證的建議。最後，基於上開分析比較結果，進一步提出本文看法並做成結論。

To facilitate the participation in the criminal trial by both citizens and judges, enhance the transparency of the judiciary, account for the public's opinions towards the law, promote the public's confidence in the judiciary, and provide the public with a better understanding of the judiciary, Citizen Judges Act was officially implemented in January 2023.
Under the Citizen Judges System, citizen judges do not have access to evidence beforehand, but rather use evidence presented by the court during the trial process to determine the facts of a crime by hearing and seeing the evidence. However, as far as character evidence is used to establish the fact of the crime, there is a risk of erroneous factual findings due to the fact that the character evidence is based on personality evaluations that are not supported by empirical evidence.
If they are brought to trial, because there is a higher risk of misidentification of the facts of the crime by a legally literate Citizen Judges. In the preparatory proceedings, when the court makes rulings on evidence, it may face the question of how the court should rule on the evidence regarding the defendant's prior convictions or similar facts. Can the defendant's previous convictions of the same type, or similar facts, character evidence, etc., be used as the main evidence to establish the facts of the crime in this case?
Based on this, this article first analyzes the criteria used by Japanese law in determining the necessity of evidence investigation and making rulings on evidence in cases involving lay judges, and after analyzing their pros and cons, proposes evidence ruling criteria that are consistent with the principle of party participation.
Secondly, by referring to the Japanese legal system, particularly regarding how courts should make rulings on evidence when facing prosecutors' requests to investigate the defendant's past criminal acts, such as evidence of prior convictions and similar facts, this article discusses how such evidence should be handled.
Specifically, this article will focus on using evidence of similar facts as proof of the defendant's character and the demonstration of subjective elements. After discussing specific case facts involving the use of evidence of similar facts, this article proposes recommendations on how evidence of similar facts should be used to establish criminal facts in the system of lay judges. Finally, addressing the aforementioned issues, based on the comparative analysis above, this article further presents its views and draws conclusions.