無謊不成狀？清代中國的誣告罪——以《淡新檔案》為核心之再檢討

Abstract

本文旨在考察清代地方衙門的誣告案件，並釐清、補充和修正既有研究所描繪之誣告現象。既有研究普遍認為，清代州縣等地方衙門存在「誣告叢生」之現象。對此，既有研究主要有兩種解釋，其一是「為圖准狀而誣告說」，此種看法認為地方官員因為想要規避審轉和上控風險，於是以大事化小的方式放縱誣告案件。其二是「情理衡平說」，此種看法認為相較於依法審判，地方官員更考慮「情理」的衡平，因此在審判時選擇彈性處理處理誣告案件。兩者的共同點為地方官並未嚴格執行官方規定依照律例懲罰誣告。然而，上述研究一方面並未對清代誣告罪的法律定義加以釐清和界定；另一方面，部分研究就連用以佐證「地方官員放縱誣告之比例極高」的案件之選樣標準與具體案件為何都缺乏說明，而產生檢證之困難。從而，如果要對清代誣告現象進行討論，我們不得不進行全盤的重新檢視。 有鑒於此，本文試圖以清治臺灣地方層級的《淡新檔案》為主要史料，並和中央層級的史料進行對照，以重新探討地方衙門的誣告現象。首先，本文利用《大清律彙集便覽》、《大清律例根原》和《刑案匯覽》等史料討論中央官員對於《大清律例》中「誣告律」的解釋和審理模式，從而逼近清代中央司法審判機關對「清代誣告罪」的權威解釋。接著本文將焦點轉向《淡新檔案》中「被官員認定控訴不實」的案件，討論地方官員對誣告案件的認定和審理標準。 最後藉由中央對「誣告律」的權威解釋和地方對「不實控案」的審理模式之兩層次的對照檢驗，本文得出兩個主要的發現： 第一，既有研究對於「清代誣告罪」的認定過於寬泛導致地方衙門的誣告現象被誇大。首先本文從「條文、註釋、立法」三個方面對清代中央史料進行的分析指出，清代中央對誣告的定義有「不實、到官、有心」三個要件。其次藉由對《刑案匯覽》的案件之分析，本文進一步得出「有心」的判斷標準取決於當事人是否「控出有因、懷疑誤控、據實供明」──而既有研究則往往把各種官員判斷並非「有心」（因此並非誣告，但是仍然可能因為其他理由被處罰）的不實控訴，甚至是並未控訴不實而僅僅只是牽扯枝節瑣事的訴訟策略，一律視為誣告案件進行討論，從而有過度評價清代地方訴訟中「民眾誣告」和「官員放縱誣告」頻率之虞。 第二，從《淡新檔案》觀之，由於大部分案件（不管有無控訴不實）都很少能夠獲得實質審理。就此意義而言，地方官員的確有放縱誣告（與其他不法行為）之情形。然而若聚焦在「實際獲得審理」的不實控案進行分析，我們會發現地方官員其實會依照是否「涉及刑名指控」區分誣告案件和所謂「捏告」案件。而進一步在誣告案件中，地方官員判斷「是否懲罰」的規範標準上，其實和中央官員庶幾相同（在「到官」和「不實」的前提上，進一步判斷是否符合「有心」的要件），只是「懲罰輕重」並不會遵照律例。換言之，在清代地方衙門的審判中，「誣告律」仍然是地方官員審判時的重要指引。只是地方官員並不會全盤適用，而會在科刑部份進行調整，從輕發落──此外，雖然在部分案件中，地方官員會使用「本應究誣…姑念…」等看似縱放誣告的說詞幫當事人與以開脫，但是實際檢視案情會發現此類案件往往並不符合誣告要件（特別是因為「控出有因」而非有心），因此其實質並非「本應究誣…姑念…」字面上的法外開恩，而僅僅是地方官員用以恐嚇當事人，藉以展現恩威並施形象的治理手段。

This research aims at inspecting false accusations at local yamens in Qing Dynasty, and further clarifies, supplements and corrects the phenomenon that prior researches depicted. Prior researches generally suggested that false accusation cases were common at local yamens in Qing Dynasty. At this, there are mainly two interpretations. The first is “to falsely accuse to get suits accepted.” This interpretation claims that local officials connived false accusations in a trivializing way in order to avoid pressure from review and ratification system. The second interpretation is “to balance reason and sentiment. This interpretation maintains that local officials laid more emphasis on the balance between reason and sentiment rather than trial-by-legislature, so they might deal with false accusations flexibly during trials. However, on one hand, the researches above don’t clarify the legal definition of false accusation in Qing dynasty and define it; on the other hand, parts of researches lack explanation toward the sampling standard and the concrete cases which are picked to prove the high ratio that local officials connived false accusations; therefore, the difficulty in verification ensues. Hence, if we are going to discuss the phenomenon of false accusation in Qing dynasty, we have no choice but re-inspect thoroughly. In the light of this, this research attempts to re-inspect the phenomenon of false accusation at local yamens with Dan-Xin Archives, which belongs to the local level, as the main historical reference and compares it with central leveled references. First, this research consults Da Qing lü li hui ji bian lan, Da Qing lü li gen yuan, and Xing'an huilan [A Conspectus of Judicial Cases] to discuss the trial mode and the interpretation of central officials toward False Accusation Rule in Da Qing lü li. Then, this research will turn the focus to the cases which were regarded as falsely lodged in Dan-Xin Archives to discuss the trial and determination criterion of local officials toward false accusation cases. With the contrast and comparison between the centrally authorized interpretation and the local trial mode toward falsely-lodged cases, this research has two main findings. First, existing researches exaggerate the false accusation phenomenon at local yamens since the determination of “false accusation crime in Qing dynasty” is too loose. According to the analysis to central historical data in Qing dynasty from three aspects--rule, annotations and legislation--, there were three elements--false, to court, intended-- in the determination of false accusation in Qing’s central definition. Second, according to the analysis to cases in Xing'an huilan, this research further finds out that the determination criterion depended on whether the parties “控出有因、懷疑誤控、據實供明”. And prior researches would deem all the cases that officials judged to be not intended and even the cases that were not falsely lodged but merely got involved with trivialities as a lawsuit strategy as false accusations to discuss, which might overestimate the frequency that citizens falsely accused and that officials connived false accusations in Qing’s local lawsuits. Second, according to Dan-Xin Archives, since most cases, no matter whether they were falsely lodged or not, were scarcely accepted and trialed actually, therefore in terms of this, local officials indeed connived false accusations. If we focus on cased accepted and trialed to analyze, we can find local officials would distinguish false accusation cases and fabricated ones in line with whether they got involved with certain criminal terms. And in false accusation cases, the criterion which local officials adopted to determine whether to punish was almost identical to that of central official, but the charges didn’t go with Da Qing lü li. In other words, False Accusation Rule was still a significant guide during trials in local yamens, but local officials wouldn’t apply it thoroughly but adjusted the charges and sentenced as mildly as possible. Besides, though some local officials used “it should be punished…, but we consider that…” which seemingly connived the parties to absolve them, these cases didn’t meet the elements of false accusation after we look into them. It was only a governing method which local officials adopted to Intimidate parties to form both benevolent and majestic image.