探討法院在毒品案件之事實認定──以臺北地院審理販賣及幫助他人施用毒品案件心證為例

Research on fact-determination in cases about narcotics: from the perspectives of cases about selling narcotics or helping others to use narcotics in Taipei District Court

販賣毒品與幫助他人施用毒品，多數同具向毒販取得毒品後交付他人並收取對價之行為外觀，但因事實認定差異，致引用罪名之刑責差距甚大，是以釐清法院在何等情形，會認定被告所為係販賣或幫助他人施用毒品，應屬迫切。經隨機擷取判決閱讀分析後，本文在形式上先確定，不論法院認為被告犯行為販賣或幫助他人施用毒品，卷證中證據存在之特徵皆是：多會存在因被告介入而取得毒品者之陳述。多會存在監聽譯文，即便沒有監聽譯文之案件，也多會有Line對話發揮與監聽譯文相同之功能。共同被告之供述或是否扣到毒品，皆非法院認定犯罪事實不可或缺。既然形式上證據存在狀況並無二致，則使得法院作出不同認定者，就是證據的實質內容，以及法院運用的論理及經驗法則。就此，本文發現不論法院認定被告犯行為販賣或幫助他人施用毒品，在判決論述中都較會出現的二種證據解讀方法為：透過對監聽譯文或Line對話之解讀論斷被告與因被告介入而取得毒品者間為販賣或幫助施用毒品透過拆解因被告介入而取得毒品者之陳述，論斷被告為販賣或幫助施用毒品。此外，本文也發現在法院認定被告為販賣毒品時，除以上二種證據解讀方法，法院判決還會另外出現一種證據解讀方式，及二種經驗法則。前者為：透過對照被告之供述及因被告介入而取得毒品者之陳述認定被告之獲利進而確認營利意圖。後者則是：不能以未能查得被告轉讓毒品價差論斷被告無營利意圖若因被告介入而取得毒品者之陳述前後不一，即便持有或施用毒品之人於審理時改證稱二者為幫助施用關係，法院將傾向不採。

Selling narcotics or helping others to use narcotics, in most cases, presents similar outward appearance, but their punishment is fairly different in the jurisdiction. To realize in which circumstance the court may determine what the accused did is selling narcotics or helping others to use narcotics is necessary. In this paper, the author found that, after analyzing a large number of judgments ruled by Taipei District Court, no matter what the court determined, the characteristics of evidence is, (1) in most cases the statement from those who obtained narcotics because of the accused exists, (2) communications records usually exist, (3) the statement from co-offenders or narcotics-holders, are not necessary for the court to determine the fact. Since the circumstances of existing exterior evidence may be similar, what causes the court to make different judgment is the content of evidence, and the rules of experience and logics employed. The author finds that no matter the court considers what the accused did is selling narcotics or helping others to use narcotics, from communications records, Line records, or statement from those who obtained narcotics because of the accused may all be employed to reach the conclusion. However, when the court ruled what the accused did is selling narcotics, they usually employed the statement of the accused to assure his/her profit to infer the intent to obtain interests. In addition, there are often two types of rules of experience seemingly used in the judgment when the court ruled what the accused did is selling narcotics, which are (1) considering the accused having no intent to acquire interests as failed assuring his/her profit is not permissible; (2) inclined not to believe the statement from those who obtained narcotics as the accused whose statement on trial is different from that during investigation.