國民參與審判案件的上訴審審查原則──日本裁判員實務經驗的啟發

An Exploration of Review Principles for Appeals in Citizen Judge Cases Based on the Practice of Japan’s Saiban-in System

我國國民法官制度，係從一般國民中隨機選出國民法官參與重大刑事案件的一審審判，國民法官在與職業法官共同全程審理後，共同就被告是否有罪、量刑輕重作成判斷。國民法官參與事實認定、法律適用與量刑的決定，一方面，為實現國民法官法所稱反映國民正當法律感情、增進國民對於司法之瞭解及信賴、彰顯國民主權理念之制度目的，經國民參與並與法官共同作成的決定，應獲得充分尊重；另一方面，如一審法院判決結果有違法不當且侵害當事人權益之疑慮，也應有適當之機制予以糾正，因此，二審法院要以何種方式審查國民參與審判之一審判決，就成為值得討論的課題。本文藉由日本裁判員制度實施之經驗，且以日本最高裁判所幾個指標性案例為中心，先探討二審法院審查一審判決的正當性基礎，以及二審是否須尊重一審國民參與審判之判決，及其理由何在，再分別從事實認定、量刑判斷兩個面向，分析二審法院對於一審判決之審查基準，最後則探討當二審法院認一審判決有撤銷事由時，應自為判決或撤銷發回。期待可對未來二審法院審查一審國民法官案件提供若干建議。

In the ROC(Taiwan), citizen judge participation in criminal trials involves randomly selecting citizen judges from the general populace to participate in the first-instance trials of significant criminal cases. These citizen judges, alongside professional judges, conduct the entire trial and jointly decide on the defendant’s guilt and the severity of sentencing.
Citizen judges are involved in the decision-making process regarding fact-finding, the application of law, and sentencing. On one hand, to achieve the institutional objectives of reflecting the public’s rightful legal sentiments, enhancing public understanding and trust in the judiciary, and embodying the principle of popular sovereignty, decisions made jointly by lay judges and professional judges should be respected. On the other hand, if the first-instance court’s decision is illegal or improper and potentially infringes on the rights of the parties involved, there should be appropriate mechanisms to correct such issues. Therefore, how appellate courts should review first-instance decisions involving citizen judge participation becomes a topic worthy of discussion.
Drawing on the experience from the implementation of Japan’s citizen judge (Saiban-in) system, and centering on several landmark cases from the Supreme Court of Japan, this paper first examines the legitimacy of appellate review of first-instance decisions and whether appellate courts should respect decisions made in trials involving lay participation, along with the reasons for this. It then analyzes the standards of review from the perspectives of factfinding and sentencing decisions. Finally, the paper discusses the appropriate actions for appellate courts when they find grounds for annulment in first-instance decisions, considering whether to make a new judgment themselves or to annul and remand the case. This exploration aims to offer some recommendations for future appellate reviews of cases involving lay judges in the first instance.