虛偽自白與冤罪的產生──評析臺灣高等法院臺南分院88年度上重訴字第758號刑事判決

False Confessions and the Generation of Wrongful Convictions - An Analysis of the 1999 Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Criminal Judgment No. 758

1997年12月18日於台南發生被害人詹春子遭擄走後，當晚被害人家屬接到綁架勒贖電話，隔天隨即發現遭膠帶綑綁之被害者遺體。就被害者死亡原因，經法醫鑑定為遭他人以繩索絞勒致窒息死亡，其頸部索痕之致傷物為直徑0.4公分之單股索狀物，是造成窒息死亡的原因。警方鎖定犯罪嫌疑人盧正，於1998年1月16日上午請盧正前往警察局協助調查，盧正在後續警詢、檢訊過程中，先後三次自白犯罪；其後於1998年3月5日檢察官偵訊時，盧正表示清白並否認犯案，此為首次翻供並稱其係遭利誘而認罪。
然而，全案仍被檢察官以擄人勒贖殺人罪，向臺南地方法院提起公訴。其後經歷一審「臺灣臺南地方法院87年度重訴字第13號刑事判決」及二審「臺灣高等法院臺南分院88年度上重訴字第758號刑事判決」，均以被告盧正之自白、經扣押之鞋帶以及相關證據等，認定有罪。全案雖經上訴最高法院，仍遭「最高法院89年度台上字第3822號刑事判決」駁回上訴，全案因而確定。判決確定後，其後雖然歷經盧正聲請再審，惟因再審遭駁回，法務部於2000年9月7日執行死刑。
於盧正被執行死刑後24年的今日，本文重新檢視歷審判決對於犯案過程的論述。此外，也由於本案的有罪判決，大量仰賴盧正的自白及其他情況證據進行推論，本文也將討論重點置於虛偽自白及其判斷基準、錄音錄影證據與特定主觀視角偏誤、前科證據的評價，及證據與待證事實間推論過程的不合理等問題，並進一步分析「臺灣高等法院臺南分院88年度上重訴字第758號刑事判決」判決論理顯有違誤之處。最後，本文亦於上述討論中，借鏡日本法制，提出本文見解並做成結論。

On December 18, 1997, a woman named Chun-Tzu Chan was abducted in Tainan. That same evening, her family received a ransom call, and the next day, her body—bound with adhesive tape—was discovered. According to the forensic examination, the cause of death was asphyxiation due to ligature strangulation with a 0.4 cm diameter cord-like object. The police identified Cheng Lu as the prime suspect and summoned him to the station on January 16, 1998. During subsequent police and prosecutorial interrogations, Lu confessed to the crime on three separate occasions. However, on March 5, 1998, during a later prosecutorial interview, he recanted for the first time, claiming that his confession had been induced by improper incentives.
Despite the recantation, the Tainan District Prosecutors Office indicted Lu for kidnapping for ransom and murder. Both the trial court (Tainan District Court, 1998 Chong-Su No. 13) and the appellate court (Tainan Branch of the Taiwan High Court, 1999 Shang-Chong-Su No. 758) convicted him, primarily relying on his confessions, a shoelace seized during the investigation, and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court rejected his appeal (2000 Tai-Shang No. 3822), rendering the verdict final. Although Lu later filed for retrial, the petition was denied, and the death penalty was carried out by the Ministry of Justice on September 7, 2000.
Twenty-four years after Lu’s execution, this article reexamines the judicial reasoning in each stage of the proceedings, with particular attention to the conviction's heavy reliance on Lu's confessions and circumstantial evidence. The analysis focuses on issues including false confessions and their evaluation criteria, the role of audio-visual recordings and subjective bias in interpreting evidence, the admissibility and weight of prior conviction evidence, and flawed inferential reasoning between evidence and facts to be proved. Special attention is given to the legal and logical deficiencies in the reasoning of the appellate decision (Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch, 1999 Shang-Chong-Su No. 758). Drawing on comparative insights from Japanese legal doctrine, the article concludes by proposing normative and procedural reforms aimed at preventing miscarriages of justice in similar cases.