外國羈押期間折抵的類推適用－評析最高法院109年度台抗字第1082號裁定

To Apply Foreign Detention Jail Credit by Analogy: Comment on Ruling No. 1082 of the Supreme Court in 2020

10.6868/HKLR.202112_(71).05

朱祐頤(Yu-Yi Chu)

類推適用 ； 刑期折抵 ； 刑事司法互助 ； 移交受刑人 ； 一事不再理 ； Analogy Principle ； Jail Credit ； Mutual Legal Assistance ； Transfer of Sentenced Persons ； Non Bis in Idem

華岡法粹

71期（2021 / 12 / 01）

211 - 251

繁體中文

我國對於外國所為的羈押期間可否折抵，實務見解以往採取「二分模式」，將羈押分為「受我國司法互助請求所為羈押」以及「非受我國司法互助請求所為羈押」的兩種情形，並且就前者認為是我國司法權行使的延伸，將外國羈押以視同的方式，擬制為我國所為的羈押，直接適用刑法第37條之2，但對於非受司法互助請求所為的羈押，則是無任何折抵的方式，而在最高法院近期的裁定之中，不同以往，提出應類推適用刑法第37條之2及跨國移交受刑人法第10條的規定，並且引用聯合國反腐敗公約以及刑事司法互助的法理，但本文認為實務見解在理由與結論上有互相矛盾的嫌疑，雖然類推適用移交法的結論是正確的，但是說理並不正確，並且在結論上不應以類推適用刑法第37條之2進行折抵，在參考德國刑法的規定，以及不同審判權間折抵的性質，應以類推適用刑法第9條的方式，並類推適用跨國移交受刑人法第10條作為規範的補充。

The practical opinion of the courts has adopted the dichotomy mode towards the issue of whether the period of detention in the foreign countries can be jail-credited or not. The adjudicates of detention in the foreign countries had been divided into the ones that are ＂requested by the mutual legal assistance made by Taiwan＂ and the ones that are ＂non-requested by the mutual legal assistance made by Taiwan＂. The former ones have been considered as the extension of the exercise of the judicial right of Taiwan, videlicet, the detention in the foreign countries would be constructed to the detention in Taiwan and would apply to Article 37-2 of the Criminal Code. Per contra, the detentions non-requested by the mutual Legal Assistance made by Taiwan could only jail-credit nothing. However, the Supreme Court has recently made an innovate ruling (Ruling No.1082 of the Supreme Court in 2020). The ruling mentioned that the detentions non-requested by the Legal Assistance made by Taiwan should apply Article 37-2 of the Criminal Code and Article 10 of the Transfer of the Sentenced Persons Act analogously. It also cited the convention against Corruption of the United Nation and the principals of mutual legal assistance in criminal-matters. However, this study finds the reason and the conclusion of the ruling in conflict. Although the conclusion of applying the detentions non-requested by the Legal Assistance made by Taiwan analogously to the Transfer of the Sentenced Persons Act is reasonable, the rationales are not. The conclusion of applying the detentions non-requested by the Legal Assistance made by Taiwan to Article 37-2 of Criminal Code analogously isn't ideal, either. According to Strafgesetzbuch (the German penal code) and concerning the jurisdictions are varied, the detention should be generally applied to Article 9 of the Criminal Code by analogy and should be applied analogously to Article 10 of the Transfer of the Sentenced Persons Act as a supplement.

1. 陳靜隆(2018)。論刑事訴訟一事不再理－從裁判確定力談起。法令月刊，69(6)，54-74。
   連結：
2. Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich,Weigend, Thomas,徐久生（譯）(2001).德國刑法教科書.中國法制出版社.
3. Larenz, Karl,陳愛娥（譯）(1996).法學方法論.五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
4. Satzger, Helmut,王士帆（譯）(2014).國際刑法與歐洲刑法.元照出版有限公司.
5. 王兆鵬(2008).一事不再理.自版.
6. 王皇玉(2019).刑法總則.新學林出版股份有限公司.
7. 王澤鑑(1999).法律思維與民法體系.自版.
8. 甘添貴(2006)。數案羈押之刑期折抵。跨世紀法學新思維－法學叢刊創刊五十週年
9. 周慶東(2012)。刑罰執行之法互助－以德國國際刑事司法互助法為考察。司法新聲，103，26-36。
10. 林鈺雄(2020).刑事訴訟法（上）.新學林出版股份有限公司.
11. 林鈺雄(2018).新刑法總則.元照出版有限公司.
12. 張麗卿(2020).刑法總則理論與運用.五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
13. 陳子平(2015).刑法總論.元照出版有限公司.
14. 陳重言(2012)。德國法規範下之國際刑事執行互助基礎架構－兼評我國跨國受刑人移交法草案。法學叢刊，57(4)，45-94。
15. 陳重言(2012)。刑罰折抵－借鏡德國法之體系重構。甘添貴教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集（上冊）
16. 楊婉莉(2016)。初探跨境案件之境外羈押折抵刑期（下）－以最高法院裁判為中心。月旦裁判時報，44，49-65。
17. 廖先志(2014)。論《跨國移交受刑人法》第 10 條之折抵。檢協會訊，99，3-6。
18. 褚劍鴻(1992).刑法總則論.自版.
19. 蔡佩芬(2009)。司法互助若干問題研究－涉外刑事判決效力概覽。財產法暨經濟法，18，121-162。
20. 鄭文中(2013)。從國際刑事法論一事不再理原則於歐盟之發展。中華國際法與超國界法評論，9(2)，243-286。
21. 鄭文中(2015).發展中之國家刑法.法源資訊股份有限公司.
22. 薛智仁(2018)。刑事程序法定原則。月旦刑事法評論，11，20-44。
23. 蘇俊雄(1995).刑法總論 I.自版.