| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 法律學研究所 === 101 === The court, to act as trial institute, has its major authority to “determine the fact” as well as “apply the law”. As for the fact-finding, our country adopts “Free Evaluation of Evidence Principle”, which authorizes the judge to determine case by case how the fact is proved and inferred through the evidences. However, the meaning of “Free” in that principle is constructed with concrete inner connotation and outer restriction, and not decided by the willfulness of the judge. In the past, courts and scholars didn’t elaborate that principle in depth, which has given a rise to the discrepant verdicts between different courts and criticisms from the people. Consequently, the fundamental solution is to build the substantial connotation of free evaluation of evidence principle, by means of the observations of its operating subject, object, inner connotation, outer restriction and function as well as its operating model, and to reify this uncertain concept of law regulated by legislator, so as to find a way to follow and refer to by the judge.
The most commonly-adopted content of free evaluation of evidence principle is “Indirect Proof ”. Owing to proving the direct fact through direct evidence is rarely seen in lawsuit, the application of proving indirect fact by indirect evidence, and then inferring the existence of direct fact through the inferring function of indirect fact, is much common in each case. Nevertheless, in the meaning of Indirect Proof, the “content and amount of indirect fact”, “content of inferring function” and “scope which the direct fact could be inferred from the direct fact” are determined by large-scale discretion of the judge case by case. As a result of the discretion, the circumstances of divergent operating contents and consequences are emerged. Therefore, the connotation of that principle should be analyzed and the operating models are tried to addressed, hoping to provide for the judge to take into account.
“Free Evaluation of Evidence Principle” and “Indirect Proof”, which are conducted as civil procedural principle in a highly individually case-operating nature, substantially influence the fact-finding in specific lawsuit with its odds and ends of operation. In order to improve and correct the discrepant fact-finding and constantly-verdict-reversing problems appearing in the courts at present, it is necessary to bring up the ways to operate the two principles as well as the reviewing and interacting relationships between trial courts and trial court and trial of law, and to establish specific legal certainty, legal steability and operation standards.
|
|---|
