完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 邱忠義 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Jong-Yi Chiou | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-10-24T23:31:44Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-10-24T23:31:44Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2022-09 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 2523-0298 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/%e6%aa%a2%e5%af%9f%e5%ae%98%e5%b0%b1%e8%a2%ab%e5%91%8a%e5%85%b7%e3%80%8c%e7%b4%af%e7%8a%af%e4%ba%8b%e5%af%a6%e3%80%8d%e5%8f%8a%e3%80%8c%e5%8a%a0%e9%87%8d%e9%87%8f%e5%88%91%e4%ba%8b%e9%a0%85%e3%80%8d/ | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11536/161718 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 臺灣司法實務雖早已改採改良式當事人進行主義,惟仍有若干思維殘存糾問主義色彩,尤其是對被告不利益之事項,仍遺留著職權進行主義之餘威。以累犯為例,司法實務向認為關於被告具有「累犯事實」以及「應加重量刑之事項」,屬於法院認定事實與適用法律之基礎事項,客觀上有調查之必要性,法院「應」依職權加以調查。惟最高法院刑事大法庭 110 年度台上大字第 5660 號裁定,藉助於司法院釋字第 775 號解釋所蘊涵的司法改革理路,做出震撼性的宣告:上開累犯事項,應分別由檢察官負舉證、說明責任。此一裁定,雖是最高法院擺脫職權進行主義舊例的一小步,但已足以將司法改革之路往前推進一大步。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | en_US | |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | en_US |
dc.publisher | 陽明交通大學科技法律學院(原名稱:交通大學科技法律研究所) | zh_TW |
dc.publisher | NYCU School of Law | en_US |
dc.subject | 改良式當事人進行主義 | zh_TW |
dc.subject | 累犯 | zh_TW |
dc.subject | 舉證責任 | zh_TW |
dc.subject | 說明責任 | zh_TW |
dc.subject | 嚴格證明 | zh_TW |
dc.subject | Modified Adversary System | en_US |
dc.subject | Repeated Offending | en_US |
dc.subject | Burden of Proof | en_US |
dc.subject | Provide | en_US |
dc.subject | Rule of Strict Proof | en_US |
dc.title | 檢察官就被告具「累犯事實」及「加重量刑事項」之舉證或說明責任──以最高法院刑事大法庭110年度台上大字第5660號裁定為中心 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Prosecutors Shall Bear the Burden of Proof with the Obligation for Providing Clear Explanations of “Facts for Repeated Offending” and “Crimes that Should Be Aggregated”: Centered on “110 Year Taishang Dazi No. 5660” Ruling of the Supreme Court of Taiwan | en_US |
dc.type | Campus Publications | en_US |
dc.identifier.journal | 交大法學評論(原名稱:科技法學評論) | zh_TW |
dc.identifier.journal | NCTU Law Review | en_US |
dc.citation.issue | 11 | en_US |
dc.citation.spage | 95 | en_US |
dc.citation.epage | 134 | en_US |
顯示於類別: | 交大法學評論 |