國民參與審判下之二審法院對於事實認定之審查

Determined Facts that Can Be Investigated by Appellate Courts Under the Framework of Lay Participation in the Criminal Trial System

國民法官法案件上訴至二審後，其審理程序與現行刑訴法之設計有諸多不同。國民法官法限縮了二審法院調查證據及對事實認定之權限，除了違反程序法令之情況，認為僅有在二審法院認定一審法院所為之事實認定違反「經驗法則、論理法則」時可撤銷；但同時亦保留了二審法院在必要情況下，可依當事人聲請或職權調查證據。
而日本裁判員制度上訴至二審後，亦和我國一樣，由職業法官審理有國民參與審判的一審案件，且日本最高法院亦在近年在判決中要求二審法院應僅有在一審法院違反「經驗法則、論理法則」時方可撤銷，兩國具有相似的問題點與法制背景。
因此，本文分為對於上訴審制度之探究、裁判員制度導入後日本二審法院之變化、日本實務與學說對於事實誤認之看法等，希望藉由日本法上的經驗，給予我國日後實施國民法官法時，二審審查一審判決時參考標準。

In Taiwan, the National Judges Act (hereinafter, the ACT) follows a different approach from that of the existing criminal procedure law, especially in the appellate court of second instance. In general, the ACT limits the amount of evidence and the number of determined facts that an appellate court can investigate. Except in the case of a procedural violation, an appellate court can overturn the verdict of a district court when the facts determined by the district court violate empirical laws or principles of logic. On the other hand, the ACT allows the appellate court, either on the parties’application or on the court’s own initiative, to investigate evidence when
necessary.
In a recent verdict (2011, no. 757, February 13, 2012), the Supreme Court of Japan stated that an appellate court should overturn the verdict of a district court only when it violates empirical laws or principles of logic. At first glance, both Taiwan’s ACT and Japan’s system seem to employ the same approach to ex-post review. However, Taiwan’s ACT provides greater flexibility for appellate courts to determine which evidence they can investigate, which is a key aspect distinguishing it from the ex-post review system in Japan.
This study focuses on: (1) the operation of the appeal system, (2) the verdicts of Japanese appellate courts after lay participation was adopted in the criminal system, and (3) the views of the Supreme Court of Japan regarding instances of factual misapprehensions by appellate courts. Adopting examples from Japanese law may allow Taiwan to improve its ACT and prepare for lay participation in the criminal system in the future.