論證券交易所監視報告之證據能力

A Discussion on the Evidential Capacity of Securities Exchange's Surveillance Reports

刑事訴訟法明文規定於審判程序中原則上禁止使用傳聞證據（傳聞法則），但亦設有例外規定，其中之一即為「特信性文書」。刑事訴訟法第159條之4列舉了3種類型之特信性文書。與其他傳聞例外相比，特信性文書並不要求需保障被告之對質詰問權，即可作為證明被告犯罪之證據，故被論者視為「居於傳聞例外頂點位置之傳聞證據」。在炒作股價及內線交易案件中，證券交易所之監視報告一向被視為舉證被告犯罪之重要證據，有許多實務見解認為監視報告為刑事訴訟法第159條之4第2款、第3款之特信性文書，而具有證據能力。但本文認為「特信性文書」必須具備「業務關連性或非私事性、繼續性、連續性、同時性、可檢查性」等要件，監視報告並不具備上述要件，故並非特信性文書。證券交易所監視報告屬於特信性文書之實務見解，恐有造成傳聞法則解釋體系混亂之虞。 The use of hearsay evidence in criminal procedure is generally not admissible by law (as known as“Hearsay Rule”). But there are several exceptions as well. One of them is“Highly Confident Documents”. The article 159-4 of the code of criminal procedure enumerates three categories of highly confident documents. To compare with other exceptions of hearsay rule, the“Highly Confident Documents”are admissible in criminal procedure and not required of objectional examination, thus the“Highly Confident Documents”are considered as“the vertex position of the exceptions of hearsay rule”. Securities Exchange's Surveillance Reports are considered as significant evidence in substantiation of indictment of the crimes of speculation and insider trading. A considerable number of judicial precedents show that Securities Exchange's Surveillance Reports are“Highly Confident Documents” which provided in the section 2&3 of the article 159-4 of the code of criminal procedure. This article believed that the“Highly Confident Documents”is composed of“Relevant to author's occupation”, “Continuity”, “Simultaneity”and “Accountability”, Securities Exchange's Surveillance Reports do not correspond to those requirements. Judicial precedents show that Securities Exchange's Surveillance Reports are“Highly Confident Documents”might lead to confusion of the interpretation of hearsay rule.