罪疑唯輕原則之例外――德國選擇確定制度之啟示

The Exception to the Principle of“in Dubio Pro Reo”: An Introduction to“the Alternative Finding of Guilt”of the German Law

現代法治國原則下，關於犯罪事實的認定，當法院窮盡一切調查能事，對於構成要件所要求的重要事實存否仍有懷疑，就必須對被告作有利的認定。然而，若對所有「事實真相不明」的案件，都毫無例外地援用罪疑唯輕原則，可能在某些個案中讓被告逃脫了法律制裁，而違背公平正義。為了解決這個問題，德國實務發展出「選擇確定（Wahlfeststellung）」這個機制，就某些個案，雖無法確切證明個別犯罪事實的存在，但諸多證據顯示，被告必犯其中一罪，在特定條件下，允許法院就犯罪事實做擇一有罪判決。選擇確定此機制在德國司法實務運用已有超過百年的歷史，即便2016年刑事實務質疑該機制有違憲的疑慮，但之後德國憲法法院仍然肯定該機制的合憲性。
相較於罪疑唯輕原則，選擇確定這個問題在國內實務運作上並未受到關注，本文嘗試介紹德國此一機制在德國的歷史發展、其體系概念與適用判準，並釐清與選擇確定案例類似的兩個概念－不定前、後行為。同時分析此一機制之利與弊，並提出未來若想要在我國司法實務導入此機制，制度上可能的修法建議。期待透過本文拋磚引玉，引起國內對此機制的關注與更多的討論及相關研究。

In the criminal procedure, the prosecution bears a legal burden of proving every element of an offence relevant to the guilt of the person charged. If the evidence does not produce the necessary degree of reliability or sufficiency and the court is not completely convinced, the reasonable doubt principle ensures that the defendant will be given the benefit of the doubt (“in dubio pro reo”) because the accused is presumed by law to be innocent. This is the core value of our modern rule of law. However, if such a principle is applied to all cases, defendants might avoid legal punishment, which would seriously affect the fairness of the entire criminal justice system.
To find a solution for such matters, the German judicial practice has developed a mechanism -“Wahlfeststellung”, also called“alternative finding of guilt”. When the evidence cannot prove all charges listed on the indictment but suffices to prove at least one charge, this mechanism will allow the court to make an alternative determination in a judgment that the accused has committed one or the other criminal act by his act, but without being able to prove which of the two he has committed.
This mechanism has been used in German judicial practice for more than 100 years. Even in 2016, the Federal Court of Justice questioned that the mechanism was unconstitutional, but finally the German Constitutional Court still affirmed the constitutionality of the mechanism.
Compared to the reasonable doubt principle, this mechanism has received much less attention in domestic judicial practice. This essay is to introduce the historical development of this mechanism, its system concept and application criteria. Besides, there are two other similar concepts called“Präpendenz”and“Postpendenz”, that will also be clarified.
This essay offers related issues about“Wahlfeststellung”in the hope to motivate more discussions and research about this theme.