犯罪嫌疑人之特定與追訴權時效之進行──以最高法院大法庭110年度臺上大字第5954號刑事裁定為素材

Identification of the Suspect and the Progress of the Statute of Limitations

本文以最高法院大法庭110年度臺上大字第5954號刑事裁定為素材，探討在犯罪行為人未被特定前，偵查機關所為的偵查行為是否發生對被告之犯行停止追訴權時效進行效果的問題。此一問題看似僅屬108年刑法修正前的追訴權時效規定解釋問題，然而其結論，也可能牽動較為早期的案件是否有修法後追訴權時效制度適用的結論，因此在今日也有值得探討的重要性。然而，對此問題在我國少有深入討論。本文以下將依序介紹本件裁定的背景、相對立的法律見解及最高法院所採之見解與理由（貳），並就最高法院相關實務脈絡掌握本件在實務理論上的定位（參），再從沿革的觀點嘗試推認本件所涉規定的立法者設置追訴權時效規定之目的（肆），再考察設置時效制度可能的理論根據，最後再檢討本件裁定所採取的基本立場及法院所採基準是否妥當（伍）。

Whether the investigating acts made by investigating authority to specify the person who committed a crime, have the effect to stop the statute of limitations from running out is an important question of the Taiwanese criminal law interpretative theory. Recently a decision of the Taiwanese supreme court has been made concerning this question. In the decision, the court took an affirmative position. However, not only is the authority concerning the legislative history of the Criminal Code of the Republic of China tun clear, but whether the court’s opinion is consistent with the court’s judicial practices in tradition remains a question. To clarify these questions and examine the propriety of the court’s decision, this article first introduces the background and the theoretical reason for the decision. Secondly, this article scrutinizes the traditional judicial practices of the Taiwanese supreme court to perceive the meaning of this decision in the development of the practical interpretative theory. In the following parts, this article reconfirms the legislative history to perceive the meaning and the grounds of the statute of limitations expressed by the legislator. Based on the results, this article makes a critical remark on the court decision mentioned above.