誰的經驗？誰的論理？──從最高法院一○○年度台上字第七二一八號刑事判決談起

Whose Empirical Law and Logic Principles? -- A Discussion from the Supreme Court’s Criminal Judgment of Case (100)-Tai-Shang-No.7218 [2011]

關於證據價值之高低，我國係委由法官本於確信自由評價判斷，即通稱之「自由心證原則」，而自由心證之「限制」，包含了外在界線與內在界線，前者指證據具備「證據能力」，且經「合法調查」；至於後者，則係指對於證據之評價不得違背經驗法則及論理法則」而言。經驗法則及論理法則之內容係從人類日常社會生活經驗中所觀察、累積並萃取而得，其本身當然具備濃厚之「事實」色彩，因此經驗法則與論理法則固屬「法律」屬性之「法則」，同時其本身亦可能成為待調查、證明之「事實」問題。

Judges are conferred with the right to freely evaluate evidence through inner conviction under R.O.C. law. This is the so-called principle of “free evaluation of evidence through inner conviction”. Limitations of this principle encompass exterior and interior limitations, the former means that the evidence is duly investigated and admissible while the latter requires the evaluation of evidence shall not violate empirical law and logic principles. Empirical law and logic principles are observed and accumulated from daily social lives of mankind thus they are more “factual” in essence. Therefore, even though empirical law and logic principles are “legal” principles, they may become “factual” issues which are subject to investigation and justification.