關於最高法院101 年度第2 次刑事庭會議之決議，其釋義與界定我國刑事訴訟法第163 條第2 項但書，有關「公平正義之維護」，依「目的性限縮」之解釋方式，以「應指對被告利益而攸關公平正義之事項」為限，法院應依職權主動證據調查。然而，在該會議決議之釋義與界定上，無論對於學界或係實務界而言，均具有爭議及須探討之處。因此，本文採「文獻分析法」與「比較研究法」之方式，探究我國刑事審理期間調查證據程序，以及針對最高法院101年度第2 次刑事庭會議決議予以評析。 對此，本文將控訴制度下，刑事審判程序係如何運作，以及法院審理刑事案件時，所涉及之目的與原則，加以論述。接著，予以論述關於控訴制度下，職權主義與當事人主義，兩者於刑事審理期間調查證據程序之制度上，所不同之處；並且，分別以德國與美國作為運作模式代表。此外，基於我國刑事訴訟程序之運作上，為改良式當事人進行主義；因此，本文亦探討我國刑事審理期間，證據調查程序階段之運作制度。其次，評析我國於最高法院101 年度第2次刑事庭會議決議所採之解釋。最後，針對我國刑事訴訟法第163 條第2 項，提出修法建議。;This thesis is mainly associated with the controversial resolution passed by the 2012 Second Criminal Divisions Conference of the Supreme Court of the R.O.C. giving an interpretation of to maintain justice merely including discovering facts that are critical to the interest of the accused, provided by the proviso part of Paragraph 2 of Article 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the R.O.C., has been resulting in quite a focus and debate in whether academic or practice field. Additionally, criminal procedure models, such as the adversary system, or the inquisitorial system, and with the exemplification of the U.S. and Germany being representative of each, operate differently in the procedure of examining evidence in the criminal court, as elaborated in this thesis. Furthermore, the criminal procedure model of the R.O.C., which is a reformed adversary system integrating the inquisitorial system with the adversary system, via Paragraph 2 of Article 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the R.O.C. and the resolution passed by the 2012 Second Criminal Divisions Conference of the Supreme Court of the R.O.C., remains the issue of sua sponte examining the evidence by judges and leads to a procedure of examining the evidence whichever in practice or theory is departing from the purpose of the statute in 2002. Indeed, this thesis reviews the resolution passed by the 2012 Second Criminal Divisions Conference of the Supreme Court of the R.O.C. and proposes legislation suggestions.
