论文部分内容阅读
刑事诉讼采行证据裁判主义,原则上所有的案件事实均须由法院根据证据调查之结果认定之。但众所周知的事实与法院职务上应当知晓的事实构成证据裁判主义之例外,二者均属于法院可直接认定的免证事实。《刑诉规则》第334条错误地界定了免证事实的范围。一者,其误认生效裁判所确认的事实、法律、法规的内容及其适用、不存在异议的事实、法律规定的推定事实等为免证事实;另者,其未将法院职务上应当知晓的事实纳入免证事实之范畴。
In criminal proceedings, evidentiary refusals are adopted. In principle, all the facts of the case must be determined by the court on the basis of the results of the evidence investigation. However, the well-known fact and the facts that should be known in court duties constitute an exception to the rule of evidence, both of which are exempt facts that the court can directly ascertain. Article 334 of the CPLV falsely defines the scope of the warrantless fact. One of them misjudges the facts confirmed by the effective referee, the content of the laws and regulations, its application, the fact that there is no objection, the presumption of facts presumed by law, etc., and the fact that it has not yet known the court’s position Facts are included in the category of warrantless facts.