| 摘要: | 簡易型程序，係對於通常程序之特別程序，即法院不經過通常之審理、調查程序而逕科處刑罰法律效果之程序。關於，本法原先僅有仿自德國處刑命令(strafbefehl)簡易判決或處刑，其本來特色之一在於針對明確輕案，以書面審理代替公開、言詞暨直接審判庭，但此近年歷經數度重大修法變革案，邁向擴大適用範圍目標，而1997年修法時更夾帶了偵查中之認罪協商。而刑訴法第七篇規定「簡易程序」旨在有效處理大量輕微處罰案件節省司法資源，減輕被告訟累。刑事訴訟法第449條之修法歷史以觀，依修正公布本條，於刑法第61條所列各罪之案件，一審法院依被告在偵查中之自白認定犯罪，得因檢察官之聲請簡易判決處刑，彈所科以拘役為限，若檢察官獨聲請簡易時，法院受其限制，不得逕以判決處刑，只能得依通常程序審理簡易程序功能不彰。再者，2003年修法由引進傳聞法則、充實詰問制度且第一審改採合議審判制度，通常審判程序之人力投注及司法資源耗費甚鉅，故同時引進簡式審判程序，可以說一種簡化通常審判證據調查程序之簡易型程序，在主要審理中，雖仍部分帶有言詞、公開審理色彩，但直接審理原則則受大幅限縮。儘管我國各種以快速消化案件為導向制度已經越來越多趨複雜，彼此間適用區別以及和原來機制關係也尚待釐清，本法各式簡易程序，雖歷經近年來不斷地大幅擴張，但其正當性基礎及保障正當性機制，仍有待釐清。又無論何種簡易型程序。其根本用意，一言以蔽之，在於訴訟經濟。司法資源是有限財，不可能無限擴張，因此，為了解決司法機關面臨案件負擔問題，簡化其程序，可能手段之一。刑事司法程序，尤其是通常審理程序，其耗費人力、物力資源甚鉅，若是不採行案件輕重的齊頭式平等來分配有限司法資源，司法機關恐怕因而癱瘓。而區分通常程序與簡易程序出發點在於案件類型簡繁程度、科處刑罰輕重程度，予以層級化，以達到訴訟經濟。現今案件日漸增加，因應我國司法人員工作量增加，藉由簡易判決程序簡化不必要審判程序及避免被告訟累，固然是好事，但一昧追求訴訟經濟同時是否也考慮兼顧正當性基礎及司法公平性為目標，不能僅因簡化程序而忽略當事人利益反而侵害當事人訴訟上權利，有違憲法第16條保障人民訴訟權。
惟現今社會多元化，案件類型多變，追求訴訟經濟過程之中，在簡化過程之中，難免有多少犧牲被告之權利，與憲法層面上保障被告訴訟權有所抵觸，然而簡易判決仍有存在必要性，其深究原因針對訴訟經濟，本文透過對於簡易程序研究與討論，就我國學理介紹、德國處刑命令、日本略式命令之立法及現今實務上運作模式等，嘗試解決現今簡易型訴訟程序適用疑義，並提出可能修法方向，供未來修法參考。
The simplified procedure is a special procedure for the usual procedure, that is, a procedure in which the court directly imposes criminal penalties without going through the usual trial and investigation procedures. Regarding this law, it was originally modeled after the German sentencing order (strafbefehl) for summary judgment or execution. One of its original features was that for minor cases, written trials were used instead of public, oral and direct trials. However, this has undergone several major changes in recent years. The legislative reform bill moved towards the goal of expanding the scope of application, and the 1997 legislative amendment even included plea bargaining during investigations.
The "summary procedure" stipulated in Chapter 7 of the Criminal Procedure Law is intended to effectively handle a large number of cases with minor penalties, save judicial resources, and reduce the burden of litigation on defendants. According to the revision history of Article 449 of the Criminal Procedure Code, according to the revision and promulgation of this article, in cases involving crimes listed in Article 61 of the Criminal Code, the court of first instance may, upon the prosecutor's application for summary judgment, determine the crime based on the defendant's confession during the investigation. The penalty imposed by the court is limited to detention. If the prosecutor alone requests for simplification, the court will be restricted by this and cannot directly sentence the defendant. It can only try the case according to the normal procedure. The simplified procedure is not effective.
Furthermore, the 2003 amendment introduced the hearsay rule, enriched the interrogation system, and changed the first instance to a collegial trial system. The usual trial process consumes a lot of manpower and judicial resources, so the introduction of simplified trial procedures at the same time can be said to be a simplification. Usually, the simplified procedure of the trial evidence investigation procedure still has some characteristics of oral and public trial in the main trial, but the principle of direct trial is greatly restricted.
Although various systems in China that are oriented towards the rapid resolution of cases have become increasingly complex, and the differences in their application and their relationship with the original mechanisms have yet to be clarified, the various simplified procedures of this law have been continuously expanded in recent years. Its legitimacy basis and the mechanism to ensure its legitimacy still need to be clarified. No matter what kind of simple program it is. Its fundamental purpose, in a nutshell, is litigation economy. Judicial resources are limited and cannot be expanded indefinitely. Therefore, in order to solve the problem of case burden faced by judicial organs, simplifying their procedures is one possible means. The criminal justice process, especially the routine trial process, consumes enormous amounts of human and material resources. If limited judicial resources are not allocated equally according to the severity of the case, the judicial system may become paralyzed. The starting point for distinguishing between ordinary procedure and simplified procedure is to classify the case types into different levels and the severity of the punishment imposed, so as to achieve litigation economy.
Nowadays, the number of cases is increasing day by day. In response to the increasing workload of our judicial personnel, it is a good thing to simplify unnecessary trial procedures and avoid litigation burdens for defendants through summary judgment procedures. However, is it possible to blindly pursue litigation economy while also considering the legitimacy basis and judicial fairness? The goal is to simplify the procedures and ignore the interests of the parties, which infringes upon their litigation rights. This goes against Article 16 of the Constitution, which protects the people's right to litigation.
However, in today's diversified society, the types of cases vary greatly, and in the pursuit of litigation economy, in the process of simplification, it is inevitable that the rights of the defendant will be sacrificed. This conflicts with the constitutional protection of the defendant's litigation rights. However, summary judgments still exist. The necessity of this article is to explore the reasons for the litigation economy. This article attempts to solve the current application of simplified litigation procedures through research and discussion on simplified procedures, including the introduction of Chinese theory, the legislation of German execution orders, Japanese summary orders, and the current practical operation model. doubts, and put forward possible legislative amendment directions for reference in future legislative amendments. |
