司法誤判在所難免，刑事再審制度係判決確定後糾錯之機制，為受判決人之利益聲請再審，本應無時效限制。2015 年2 月4 日修正公布之刑事訴訟法第420 條第1 項第6 款、第3 項為受判決人利益再審之新證據，大幅放寬了新證據的範圍，祇要是原確定判決未曾實質判斷過者，即屬之。在此概念下，同屬為受判決人利益再審之刑事訴訟法第421 條，有無再予規範之必要，以及此次再審新證據之修正，其射程是否及於為受判決人不利益之再審新證據，實務是否及如何正確適用，實有探討之必要。本文就修正再審新證據於實務之適用，最高法院為因應修法，為何決議將部分判例、決議予以「保留並加註」之理由，先為說明，俾使讀者能窺其緣由，再針對為受判決人之不利益聲請再審新證據之意義、刑事訴訟法第 421條「重要證據漏未審酌」之新證據，以實例說明實務尚未能洞察修法為正確適用，最後提出再審證據調查之修法建議。

Judicial misjudgments are inevitable. The criminal retrial system, as the errorcorrection procedure filed for the interests of the convicted after final judgments, should have no restrictions on its period of statute of limitation. The newly amended Art. 420, Para. 1, Subpara. 3 and Para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure greatly expanded the scope of “new evidence” to those that hadn’t been substantially considered during final judgments. In this context, the necessity of Art. 421, which is similar to Art. 420, has become a new question. In addition, whether the new scope of “new evidence” includes those filed against the interests of the convicted and how to apply in practice still require further discussion. This article will begin with explanations for the Supreme Court’s reactions to the new regulation and then illustrate how judicial practice inappropriately applies the law with cases. In conclusion, the author will bring up suggestions for how to amend evidence investigations in retrial procedures.