論國民法官法下刺激證據之調查必要性──以攝影證據為核心

我國「國民法官法」於2023年1月起正式施行上路，在此新制度下有關證據調查必要性的思考，可能和一般刑事程序下的思考有所差異。刺激證據即為一例，此類容易造成強烈心理負擔的證據是否有調查必要？或是否應容許使用？等等的疑問在過往的刑事程序中並未受到重視。本文將以刺激證據中最主要的「刺激攝影證據」為核心，首先分析我國法與模擬審判當中的討論，同時比較我國國民法官法所參考之日本裁判員制度的實務運作與相關學說，試著整理出此類證據一般被認為具有的「證據風險」和「證據價值」。本文再透過刑事法學以外的觀點，特別是心理學以及影像理論等等的視角，希望指出此類證據的偏見風險其實比想像中的高，同時其證據價值不若預想的高。最後，考量此類證據對於事實認定帶來的可能危害，本文也試圖提出規範層面的可能途徑作為結論。

The National Judge Act is officially implemented in January 2023, and under the new law, the test for necessary may be considered differently than under ordinary criminal procedures. For example, when considering gruesome evidence, is there a need to investigate such evidence that may cause strong psychological burden? Or should it be allowed to be used? In this paper, I will first analyze the discussion about the National Judge Act and our mock trial, compare the practical experiences and related discussion of the Japanese citizen judge system (saiban-in system), which is one of the references of our national judge act, and try to sort out the ''Risk of Prejudice'' and ''Probative Value'' of this kind of evidence in general. Finally, considering the possible harm that such evidence may bring to the determination of facts, this paper also proposes possible ways to conclude at the normative level.