從無罪推定及舉證責任檢視「刑事立法推定」概念—兼論我國公務員財產來源不明罪

Abstract

無罪推定，一個修習刑事法者耳熟能詳的帝王條款，自2003年正式訂入我國刑事訴訟法當中後，正式揭示我國之刑事訴訟程序採行無罪推定原則。據此，被告在刑事程序中被推定為無罪，應由檢察官對於被告之犯罪事實盡舉證責任，而釋字第556號解釋，亦肯認了檢察官應盡證明被告犯罪之舉證責任的憲法位階。然而，在現實上，由於特定犯罪之隱匿性、蒐證之困難性，檢察官對於被告犯罪之舉證常有困難，故國外刑事法學發展出「刑事立法推定」概念，在特定舉證困難的犯罪中，直接藉由立法推定之方式，減輕或轉換在無罪推定原則下檢察官應盡之舉證責任，藉此達到犯罪追訴之目的。然而這種立法模式，亦致生了是否違反無罪推定原則之高度疑慮。 為釐清上述問題，本論文首先將先介紹現今學說對於無罪推定原則、舉證責任內涵之討論，包含其概念緣起、分類、兩者之關聯性及有無例外等；進一步本論文將確立無罪推定原則在我國法應有之內涵為：檢察官應對於被告之犯罪事實，盡完全之舉證責任，且不應容許以立法方式減輕或轉換檢察官之舉證責任。 確立了上述的架構後，本論文將進而分析刑事立法推定概念。刑事立法推定包含了三種推定類型，就終局推定，本論文認為應視此種推定是否減輕檢察官之舉證責任，以判斷是否違反無罪推定原則；就強制推定，本論文認為此種推定直接將原本檢察官應證明之事實轉由被告負擔，違反無罪推定，而美國法對於此種推定的限縮方式，不是將架空此種推定，就是仍可能違反無罪推定，歐洲人權法院之限縮見解，則過於寬鬆及恣意，亦有檢討空間；最後，就任意推定，因為並未涉及檢察官舉證責任的減輕或轉換，與無罪推定並無直接違背，惟若欲引進至我國，則須審慎考慮其與我國訴訟制度的相容性，以及其本身法定證據主義性質的妥適性。 最後，本論文將以我國公務員財產來源不明罪為例，著重討論本罪之刑事立法推定性質，以及本罪與無罪推定原則、檢察官舉證責任之衝突。就結論而言，本論文認為在現行法的解釋下，本罪係屬我國法上的「強制推定」規定，違反無罪推定並不當致生冤獄風險；至於其他可能的合憲性解釋途徑，不是超脫逾越條文文義，就是必須具有更多實證基礎或背景資料，始能論斷得否為此解釋。因此在本罪修法改動條文文字，或是提供更多實證基礎或資料以擴展新局之前，本論文仍傾向於廢除本罪，始不違背無罪推定原則。

The presumption of innocence, a king provision that every criminal law learner knows well, was enacted to Taiwan' s Criminal Procedure Law in 2003 which formally declared that criminal defendants in our country are under its protection. Accordingly, the defendant in criminal procedure is presumed innocent, and should the prosecutor take responsibility for proving the defendant's guilt which was also confirmed its constitutional status by Constitutional Interpret (CI) 556. However, due to the confidentiality and the difficulty of introducing evidence in some specific crimes, the prosecutor is sometimes hard to prove the defendant's guilt in practice. In this case, foreign criminal procedure law developed 'statutory criminal presumptions' to reduce or reverse the prosecutor's burden of proof in certain crimes, yet also lead to a question that whether statutory presumptions violate the presumption of innocence or not. To clarify the above question, first of all, this article introduces scholars' discussion of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof including their origins, classifications, relevance and the possibility of exceptions. Furthermore, this article claims that the content of the presumption of innocence in our country is : ' The prosecutor should take the entire responsibility for proving the defendant's guilt. In addition, it is not allowed to reduce or reverse the prosecutor's burden of proof by legislation'. Based on these grounds, this article will further analyze and examine statutory criminal presumptions, which include the following three types: First, the conclusive presumption, whose violation of the presumption of innocence depends on whether it reduces the prosecutor's burden of proof. Second, the mandatory presumption, which disobeys the presumption of innocence because of shifting a part of the prosecutor's burden of proof to the defendant. U.S. Supreme Court' s opinion to limit the mandatory presumption by applying 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard either makes the presumption useless or makes it still unconstitutional; on the other hand, European Court of Human Rights' view to restrict the mandatory presumption is quite loose and reckless. Third, the permissive presumption, non-involvement in reducing or reversing the prosecutor's burden of proof, does not directly violate the presumption of innocence; however, once introduced to our country, we should consider its suitability according to our institution of legal procedure. Finally, this article will take Taiwan's property crime of unknown origin as an example, emphasizing its nature of statutory criminal presumptions as well as the conflict between this crime and the presumption of innocence. This article holds that under the explanation of the existing law, this crime is a mandatory presumption, violating the presumption of innocence and increasing the risk of wrongful conviction. The other possible constitutional explanations, nonetheless, either goes beyond the context of the Article or needs more information to confirm its respective appropriateness. Therefore, not until the context of this crime is modified or being sufficient empirical information to break new ground, this article still inclines to abolish this crime in order to correspond with the presumption of innocence.