| 摘要: | 卷證資訊獲知權是一個請求獲得資訊的權利，使被告於刑事程序中，有機會與檢方立於相同之地位，儘可能彌補雙方之間的實力差距，使其能主張有效之攻防，換言之，若被告能夠獲得關於被訴犯罪之相關證據，則面對檢方之指控時，才能有防禦之機會，為自己之辯護作主張，落實正當法律程序且達到公平審判之目的。正因如此，於刑事程序中，卷證資訊獲知權是被告及其辯護人獲取證據資料之重要權利，為辯護方行使防禦權之重要關鍵，近年來我國大法官透過釋字第737號解釋以及第762號解釋，逐漸開始重視辯護方獲悉卷證資訊之議題，承認於偵查羈押審查程序有獲悉卷證之權利，而於審判階段被告得自行獲悉完整之卷證資訊等等之概念，而就目前相關之立法以該如何實行？以及實務操作上會產生什麼問題及如何改進，此為本文論文之討論重點。而關於獲知卷證資訊之權利主體，除被告及其辯護人外，其他訴訟參與者是否亦能行使此一權利？而行使之範圍是否與被告相同，或者是不同？而其獲知卷證之範圍又應如何限制？因此，本文欲先由卷證資訊獲知權之權源與作用作切入，討論此一權利於我國法上之法理基礎及功能為何？進而推導出此一權利是受憲法訴訟權所保障，以此作為獲悉卷證資訊之重要依據，接著探討我國實務運作之情形，以及未盡之處。再來，分析德國法、日本法、美國法，關於辯護方獲取卷證資訊之規定，透國對其他國家制度之了解，或許將來能作為我國修法之借鏡。最後，針對本文內容予以歸納，而於其中所提出之問題，提出粗淺之見解及修法方向，以期能於未來修正卷證資訊獲知權之制度上，提供研究者立法之方向。
The right to know the information of the document is a right to request information, so that the defendant has the opportunity to be in the same position as the prosecution in the criminal process, and try to make up for the gap in strength between the two parties, so that it can advocate effective offense and defense, in other words. If the defendant can obtain relevant evidence about the accused crime, he will have the opportunity to defend himself against the prosecution's charges and make a case for his own defense. Because of this, in criminal proceedings, the right to know the evidence information is an important right for the defendant and his defender to obtain evidence, and it is an important key for the defense to exercise the right of defense. Constitution interpretation No. 762 gradually began to pay attention to the issue of the defense's access to the information on the documents, acknowledging the right to be informed of the documents during the investigative custody review process, and that the defendant should be informed of the complete information on the documents at the trial stage. How should the relevant legislation be implemented? And what problems will arise in practice and how to improve, this is the focus of this paper. As for the subject of the right to be informed of the documentary evidence, in addition to the defendant and his defender, can other litigation participants also exercise this right? And whether the scope of exercise is the same as that of the defendant, or is it different? And how should the scope of the documents they know be limited? Therefore, this article intends to start with the source and function of the right to obtain information on documents, and discuss what is the legal basis and function of this right in the laws of our country? Then it is deduced that this right is guaranteed by the constitutional right of action, which is used as an important basis for obtaining the information of the archives, and then discusses the situation of our country's practical operation, as well as the unfinished points. Next, analyzing German law, Japanese law, and American law, the regulations on the defense's access to evidence and information, and the country's understanding of other countries' systems, may serve as a reference for my country's law revision in the future. Finally, I summarize the content of this article, and put forward some superficial opinions and directions for the revision of the law on the issues raised in it, so as to provide a direction for researchers to legislate in the future revision of the system of the right to know the evidence and information. |
