【作者】 金玄默；

【导师】 卞建林；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 证据裁判主义,也称之为“证据裁判原则”,是目前大多数国家普遍认可的一项证据法上的基本原则。从证据裁判主义基本含义来看,是指在诉讼活动中,认定案件事实必须依靠证据,证据是认定案件事实的唯一手段,没有证据就不得认定事实,更不能认定犯罪。但是,由于各个国家的历史传统、文化背景、伦理道德观念、地理环境等因素的不同,它们所追求的诉讼理念都也不尽相同,由此造成了不同国家和地区之间对证据裁判內涵的认识也并不完全相同,或者即使在同一个国家和地区在不同的历史时期对什么是证据以及证据与案件事实、裁判结论之间的关系有不同的理解和要求,从而形成了内容各异的证据裁判制度。特别是,随着科技的发展和人类认识水平的提高,人们不断地对证据裁判主义产生了新的理解,提出了新的要求。本文的基本思路是:结合古今中外证据裁判主义相关理论和立法,分析和诠释了现代证据裁判主义的基本含义、价值目标,并在分析证据裁判主义诸要素的内涵与外延的基础上,就若干相关制度进行了探讨,以此试图从宏观上构建和完善我国现行的证据裁判制度。具体而言,本文共分七章:第一章“证据裁判主义概述”。在本章中笔者主要对证据裁判主义的含义、证据裁判主义的意义以及证据裁判主义的价值目标进行了叙述。其目的是对证据裁判主义为什么能够成为现代各国诉讼活动所普遍遵守的基本原则的原因进行分析和诠释。第二章“证据裁判主义的历史演进”。在这一章中,笔者把证据裁判主义的发展历程分为了三个阶段进行了考察,即(1)非依证据或依据不科学的证据进行裁判的时期,即神示证据制度时期:(2)虽依证据进行裁判,但是非理性认识证据或机械规范证据证明力的时期,即法定证据制度时期;(3)依科学证据进行理性裁判的时期,即自由心证证据制度时期。在此过程中,笔者通过对不同历史时期的裁判制度形成的原因、表现形式、特点和发展状况进行详细的分析,试图论证任何一种裁判制度的产生和发展都是与当时的社会发展程度和人们的认识水平相适应的。第三章“证据裁判主义下的证据”。本章主要是从静态的角度阐述了现代证据裁判主义下的证据应具备的特性和功能。证据裁判主义的基本要义是裁判事实的认定及至最后裁判决定的作出必须依据证据。任何想象、猜测、幻想、凭空推断等都不能作为裁判的依据。简言之,证据是裁判的基本依据。于是,何谓证据就成为我们首先要研究的课题。根据一般的理解,“证据是能够证明某事物的真实性的有关事实或材料。”是否能证明某事物的真实性直接与人的认识相关。当人们认为沸水能够检验一个人说的是否是实话,比如被沸水烫伤证明是假话,反之则是真话时,那么该人在被沸水浸泡后是否烫伤的结果本身就成为一种证据。但是,随着科技的发展和人类认识能力的不断提高,原先被视为能够证明某事物真实性的事实或材料实际上并不具有这样的功能,于是它被排除在证据的范围之外。从历史发展的角度讲,证据裁判是否定神判的产物,是随着近代理性主义的兴起,形成的一项证据法原则。因此本文所探讨的证据裁判主义下的证据主要是就现代人的认识,为现代人所认可的证据概念。值得一提的是,在本章有关证据的合法性问题,笔者通过介绍和分析日本在非法证据排除方面的判例和学术研究成果,以期待对我国非法证据排除规则的制定和完善有所裨益。第四章“证据裁判主义下的证明”。本章主要是从动态的角度说明了如何依据证据认定事实的一个过程问题。可以说,证据裁判主义的有效实现,离不开其运行机制的合理构建。即怎样设置审查、判断证据的机制,对证据裁判主义的功能实现具有决定性的意义。而如何确定证明的主体、证明对象、证明标准、证明责任等是又与合理构建审查、判断证据的机制具有直接的关系。其中证明标准问题是理论和实务界争论较多的一个问题,对此笔者也给与了重点关注。笔者认为,首先证明标准是一个主观标准,而不是客观标准,也不是主客观的统一。其次,英美法系的“排除合理怀疑”和大陆法系的“内心确信”以及我国的“案件事实清楚、证据确实充分”的证明标准,在本质上没有什么区别,只是语言表述习惯和思维惯性的差异。所以,我们所要关注的重点并不是证明标准的具体表述,而是实实在在规范证据裁判的证据规则。第五章“证据调查请求权”。在证据裁判主义下,案件的审理是通过举证、质证、认证的方式进行的,而调查证据请求权是诉讼当事人能够充分进行举证,从而确保其合法权益的一项重要的诉讼权利。虽然我国现行的诉讼法等相关的法律及司法解释对这一权利有一些规定,但总体而言,规范的漏洞和不足很多,尤其是缺乏一个整体的机制。所以,有必须进行司法改革,对其进行相应的补充和完善,特别是可以大胆借鉴国外刑事诉讼立法的经验。在本章笔者重点介绍德国、日本等国家的判例和相关法律规定,从而力求对中国的相关制度的立法改革有所裨益。第六章“证据裁判主义相关制度研究”。为有效理解证据裁判主义所具有的功能,通过解析其与无罪推定、直接言词原则、自由心证等制度之间的关系,进一步阐明了证据裁判主义在诉讼中的核心和基础地位。第七章“我国证据裁判主义的制度缺陷及完善”。文章首先对我国适用证据裁判主义的情况进行了评析,并基于此,对我国诉讼制度中确立和完善证据裁判主义制度提出了建设性的建议。文章指出,要构建和完善现代意义上的证据裁判主义不仅有必要完善证据裁判制度本身,而且也有必要完善配套诉讼制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 The principle of evidentiary adjudication,which is also called "conviction on evidence",is now a basic principle of evidence law generally recognized by most countries.From the primary meaning of the principle of evidentiary adjudication,it means in the procedure of lawsuit, the fact must be found based on evidence,which is the only means.No fact should be found without evidence,let alone to be judged as crime. However,because of the differences in the historical tradition,cultural background,ethical and moral conceptions,geographical environment of different countries,the litigation ideals pursued by these countries are not the same.Thus the cognition to the connotation of the principle of evidentiary adjudication is also not entirely same among different countries and regions.Even in the same country or same region,different periods have different comprehensions and requirements on what are evidence and the relationship between evidence and fact of the case as well as judgment. Consequently,there formed systems of evidence judgment with different contents.Especially,long with the development of science and technology and the improvement of the recognition level of mankind,people continuously get new comprehension of the principle of evidentiary adjudication,and raise new requirement.The basal outline of this dissertation is:to analyze and explain the basic meaning,value goal of the modern principle of evidentiary adjudication,combining correlative theory and legislation of the principle of evidentiary adjudication at all times and in all lands.Meanwhile,in order to build and consummate the active principle of evidentiary adjudication of our country,the author discussed some correlative system base on the connotation and extension of the element of the modern principle of evidence judgment.Concretely,this paper is divided into seven chapters:ChapterⅠ"General overview of principle of evidentiary adjudication". The author mainly talked about the meaning,signification and value goal of the principle of evidentiary adjudication,the purpose of which is to analyze and explain why the principle of evidentiary adjudication can become the widely accepted basic principle in the activity of lawsuit in all moderb States.ChapterⅡ"The historical evolvement of evidence evidentiary adjudication".The history is divided into three sections,namely,(1) The period when judging without evidence or with unscientific evidence, namely,divinity evidence system period;(2) The period when judged with evidence,but the evidence was recognized irrationally or the evidence’s force of proving was prescribed mechanically,namely,statutory evidence system period;(3) The period when judged rationally with scientific evidence,namely,free prove system period.In this process,the author attempt to minutely analyze the judgment system’s origins,form, characteristic and development in different periods,in order to demonstrate that the origination and development of any system of judgment adapt to the level of social development and the recognition level of man of the time.ChapterⅢ"Evidence under principle of evidentiary adjudication". This chapter primary expounds the necessary character and function of evidence in modern principle of evidentiary adjudication from a static perspective.The essential meaning of the principle of evidentiary adjudication is the factual and final judgments must be decided on the evidence.All imagination,guesses,fancy,deduce without foundation and so on whatsoever can not be the basis of judgment.Briefly,evidence is the basic foundation of judgment.Therefore,what is the evidence is the first task we should discuss.According to the general understanding,"evidence is the fact or material which can prove the credibility of something." Whether the truth can be proved relates with the recognition level of man directly.When people believe the boiled water can test whether a man is telling a lie or not,for example if he or she is scalded by the boiled water, he or she is telling a lie,or the other way round.Then the result itself that whether this person is scalded after dipping in boiled water becomes the evidence.However,along with the development of the science and technology and the enhancement of human knowledge,the fact and material which was regarded as can testify something truth actually doesn’t have such function,so it was eliminated out of the extension of evidence. From the historical perspective,evidence judgment is the production of denying the divinity judgment,and is formed as a principle of evidence law with the rising of the rationalism in modern times.So the evidence discussed under the principle of evidentiary adjudication in this dissertation is the recognition and accepted notation of evidence of modern people. Which worth noting is,about the legality of evidence under this chapter, the author introduced and analyzed the cases and academic achievement concerning illegal evidence exclusion in Japan,hoping it will be useful to the enactment and improvement of regulation of illegal evidence exclusion in China.ChapterⅣ"Proves under principle of evidence judgment".This chapter explains the process of how to find fact with evidence in a dynamic perspective.It is safe to say that the principle of evidentiary adjudication cannot be realized effectively without a rationally constructed operational mechanism.Namely,how to set the mechanism of examining and estimating evidence,which is of final significance to the function of the principle of evidentiary adjudication,and how to determine the subject, object,criterion and burden of proof which is directly connected with the rationally constructed mechanism of examinational and estimating evidence.The criterion of proof is one of the problems that disputed a lot in theory and practice,to which the author paid more attention to.In the author’s opinion,first,the standard of proof is subjective,not objective or a combination of both.Second,there is no essential difference among the standard of proof of "excluding reasonable doubt" in Common Law system, the standard of "moral certainty" in Civil Law system and the standard of "the fact of case clear,the testimony undoubted and sufficient" in our country.They have differences only in idiom of language expression and thinking custom.Therefore,what we need to emphasize is not the specific expression,but the evidence rules of evidence judgment which are actually formulate.ChapterⅤ"Claims of evidence investigation".Hearing a case is in the form of quoting,Cross-examination and authenticating under evidence judgment system.But the claim of evidence investigation is an important litigious right for parties to raise the evidence adequately,thereby to ensure their legal rights and interests.Although,there are procedure law and laws and judicial interpretations on this right in our country,as a complete unit, there are many legal loopholes and shortcomings of legal norm,especially lacking a system of holistic.So that our country must carry out the judicial reform and do some supplementary and improvement,especially we can boldly use the foreign experience of legislation in criminal procedure.In this chapter,the author focuses on the precedent and relative codices of Germany,Japan,etc,to benefit the relevant legislation reform in China.ChapterⅥ"Relative principle research of the principle of evidentiary adjudication".This chapter further clarifies the core and basement of the modern principle evidence judgment in the procedure through resolving the relationship among the principle of the presumption of innocence and Directness and Verbalism free evaluation of evidence,etc,in order to effectively comprehend the function of the principle of evidentiary adjudication.ChapterⅦ"The defect and complement of the principle of evidentiary adjudication in our country".The dissertation at the beginning analyzes the situation of the application of principle of evidence judgment in our country,base on which the author gives constructive advices to the setting and complement of the principle of evidentiary adjudication in litigation system of our country.The paper indicates:for the purpose of constructing and completing the principle of evidentiary adjudication in a modern sense,we need not only to complete the doctrine of evidence judgment itself but also to form a completely set lawsuit doctrines.更多还原