國民法官法中證據裁定之效力──準備程序終結後對證據提出之限制

Admissibility of Evidence in Citizen Judge Act—Restrictions on Evidence After the Completion of Preparatory Procedures

國民法官法採取卷證不併送制度，加上有國民參與審判，使得審判程序更需高度採行集中審理，以避免國民法官接觸可能產生偏頗的證據資料等，進而引發事實認定錯誤之風險。因此，國民法官法第47條第1項明定法院「應」於第一次審判期日前行準備程序。此外，為了達到集中審理及使國民法官得以實質審理，對於爭點、證據的整理之需求，也遠高於一般刑事訴訟程序，故亦立法規範雙方當事人有提出主張之義務。同時，為了避免程序延宕並防杜國民法官接觸無證據能力之資料，法院於準備程序終結前，須裁定何種證據得進入審判程序加以調查。另依同法第64條第1項之失權規定，當事人在準備程序終結後，原則上不得提出新的證據聲請。
然而，此種伴隨強烈失權效果之立法方式，對被告、辯護人行使防禦權造成一定程度的限制。本文藉由比較日本刑訴第316條之32的規範模式，嘗試在理解其立法背景之下，從釋義學角度探討如何在原則與例外事由的界定上作出較為妥適之解釋，以兼顧爭點整理、集中審理的制度要求，同時維護基本且不可或缺的防禦權之保障。

Owing to the involvement of citizen judges, a framework which facilitates concentrated trial proceedings and prevents misjudgments by citizen judges is required to be adopted. Consequently, under Article 47, Paragraph 1 of the Citizen Judge Act, the court ''shall'' conduct preparatory procedures prior to the first trial. Article 62 stipulates that, in order to prevent potential biases among lay judges and to address concerns regarding erroneous factual determinations arising from certain evidence, before the conclusion of the preparatory procedures, the court shall rule on what evidence may enter the trial for investigation. These two provisions are intended to ensure lay judges’thorough understanding and substantive review for fair and impartial judgments.
Moreover, to prevent procedural delays, unless exceptions apply, no parties may generally submit new evidence applications after the conclusion of preparatory procedures, as stipulated in Article 64. Nevertheless, the legislation above comes with a strong disqualification effect, which may limit the rights of the accused. This paper seeks to reach a balance between the centralization of the trial and the preservation of defense rights by discussing the principles and exceptions of restrictions on evidence with reference to Article 316-32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Japan in comparative law.