English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50913798      Online Users : 636
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148577


    Title: 通訊監察之期中報告義務──評最高法院110年度臺上大字第2943號刑事裁定
    Midterm Report of Communication Surveillance: Comment on the Supreme Court (110) Tai-shang-da Tzu No. 2943
    Authors: 王士帆
    Wang, Shih-Fan
    Contributors: 政大法學評論
    Keywords: 通訊監察;期中報告;證據排除;證據禁止;刑事大法庭
    Communication Surveillance;Midterm Report;Exclusion of Evidence;Prohibition of Evidence (Beweisverbot);Criminal Grand Chamber
    Date: 2023-09
    Issue Date: 2023-12-05 09:21:57 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 最高法院110年度臺上大字第2943號刑事裁定，乃針對《通保法》第5條第4項期中報告義務與違反時的後續證據使用禁止疑義而來。本文認為，鑑於《通保法》第18條之1第3項所稱「違反第5條規定」限縮解釋，應排除違反第5條第4項期中報告義務規定，故繼續監聽之內容，依《刑事訴訟法》第158條之4審酌個案之證據能力。不同於實務舊說拘泥於《通保法》第18條之1第3項文義，刑事大法庭亦接受《刑事訴訟法》第158條之4的適用可能性，終而對《通保法》第18條之1第3項「違反第5條規定」採取限縮解釋。不過，刑事大法庭之限縮解釋，乃分割成「完全未製作期中報告」和「其他違法情狀」，前者仍適用《通保法》第18條之1第3項，僅後者才適用《刑事訴訟法》第158條之4。據此，本文基於體系解釋之內在和諧與證據使用禁止層級化所提出的質疑與批評，亦同樣指向刑事大法庭。惟平心而論，刑事大法庭雖採取分割說，但至少未沿襲實務舊說，貢獻的法律見解終究是進步的。
    Article 5 (4) of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act stipulates that the enforcement authority shall file at least one report every 15 days during communication surveillance, describing the progress of conducting the surveillance and/or if it is necessary to continue implementing it. The Supreme Court (110) Tai-shang-da Tzu No. 2943 comes from the doubts about the use of evidence in the case of violating the midterm report obligation. This article believes that given the narrow interpretation of“violation of Article 5”in Article 18-1 (3) of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act and the exclusion of violations of Article 5 (4) of the midterm report obligation, the content of continued surveillance should apply to the Article 158-4 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Although the Criminal Grand Chamber also accepted the possibility of application of Article 158-4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it finally adopted a narrow interpretation of Article 18-1 (3) of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act. However, his interpretation is divided into“completely unproduced midterm report”and“other illegal circumstances”; the former is still subject to Article 18-1(3) of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act, and only the latter is subject to Article 158-4 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the questions and criticisms raised in this paper based on the internal harmony of the system interpretation and the prohibition of hierarchical use of evidence also point to the Criminal Grand Chamber. But in all fairness, the Criminal Grand Chamber at least does not follow the old practice, and the contributed legal insights are progressive after all.
    Relation: 政大法學評論, 174, 165-216
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://dx.doi.org/10.53106/102398202023090174003
    DOI: 10.53106/102398202023090174003
    Appears in Collections:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    174-3.pdf2833KbAdobe PDF100View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback