論刑事程序之不利益變更禁止原則──從兩則最高法院判決談起

A Study of the Prohibition of Reformation in Peius–Reviewing Recent Supreme Court Decisions

刑事訴訟法第370條為我國不利益變更禁止原則的明文規定，本文從兩則最高法院判決出發，分別就不利益變更禁止原則的存在理由以及但書除外規定與罪刑相當原則的關係，藉以考察不利益變更禁止原則的基礎概念及相關立法。首先，依據我國刑訴法就不利益變更禁止原則的立法沿革、法條文義及相關實務見解，可推知立法者透過本條第1項本文規定表示保護被告上訴權自由行使的決定，而但書除外規定則表示維護裁判正確的決定。亦即不利益變更禁止原則的我國立法是基於一種保護被告上訴權與維護裁判正確的政策理由。其次，最高法院雖表示不利益變更禁止原則與罪刑相當原則分屬量刑外部界限與內部界限的不同概念，卻也認為兩者具有適用上相互關連，導致不當連結彼此的效力，更使不利益變更禁止原則具有減輕第二審法院量刑的額外功能。結論上，由於但書除外規定及實務見解，本條規定在實際的解釋適用上已偏向維護裁判正確一方，並混淆不利益變更禁止原則與罪刑相當原則的效力，本文認為建構得以貫徹保護被告上訴權自由行使的實質且積極根據，並刪除但書除外規定，重新檢視相關立法，方為根本解決之道。

The prohibition of reformation in peius is legislated in Article 370 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This article starts from two the recent Supreme Court Decisions and aims to analyze the basic concept and legislation about this principle with reviewing the interpretation of the Supreme Court and theory. First, according to the legislative development, context, and judicial opinions of this principle, the Author considers the legislative model of Article 370 is a legislator’s decision about protecting the defendant’s right of appeal and maintaining correct judgement, in other word, that is a legislation basing on policy rationale. Secondly, although Supreme Court indicates the prohibition of reformation in peius and the principle of punishment commensurate with the crime are different concepts about the outer and inner limit of sentencing, it also considers they have the interrelationship in application. This interpretation causes their effects to be interconnected improperly and makes the prohibition of reformation in peius have the additional function of commutation of the sentence to the second instance. In conclusion, due to the proviso of Article 370(1) and the Judicial practice, the interpretation and application of Article 370 has tended to maintain correct judgement actually and confused the effects of two principles. Thus, the Author suggests the solution is that establish the essential and positive foundation for protecting the defendant’s right of appeal, delete the proviso of Article 370(1), and reconsider the legislative model about relevant legislation.