台湾地区刑事诉讼法经过多次修正,对被告人权的保障相当完善,而缜密的调查证据程序及繁复的交互诘问,更有助法院发现真实,使真相还原,不过,如果所有案件皆如此将造成法院无力负荷,反而使简易诉讼程序变为不可或缺。简易诉讼程序在实体正义及程序正义间寻求平衡,发挥减轻法院负担的功能,深受法官、检察官的欢迎,却也因其过于便利,使得法官、检察官认定是否符合简易诉讼制度要件时愈趋浮滥,甚至劝谕当事人认罪否则从重处罚,因而造就适用简易诉讼制度案件的低维持率,其中检察官准备不够周全即草率起诉,轻易遭法院宣告无罪,反而使罪犯逍遥法外之事,时有所闻,引起各界谴责声浪,最后反而加深人民对司法之不信任感,如此恶性循环下去。台湾地区简易诉讼制度虽一脉承袭日本之简易诉讼制度,条文也如日本规定得相当简单,简式审判甚至只有短短两条条文。台湾地区运用简易诉讼制度之情形,较日本多,适用范围则更广,惟于制度面尚不够周延,学界对于简易诉讼程序又不够重视,许多细节仍有待法理及实务惯例补足,实有待修法做更完整规范的必要。 After many amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law of Taiwan, the protection of the defendant’s human rights is quite complete. The thorough investigation of the evidentiary procedures and the complicated interlocutionary questions will help the court find out the truth and restore the truth. However, if all cases are the case, The inability of the court to load makes the summary proceedings indispensable. Simple proceedings seek balance between substantive justice and procedural justice, and play the function of alleviating the burdens of the courts. They are welcomed by judges and prosecutors. However, because of their convenience, judges and prosecutors find out whether they meet the requirements of summary proceedings. And even advised the parties to confess their guilt or severely punish them, resulting in a low maintenance rate of cases applicable to the simpler litigation system, in which the prosecutor is unprepared for full and prompt prosecution, is easily acquitted by the court, and instead makes criminals go unpunished What has been heard has aroused people’s condemnation of the sound waves. In the end, however, it deepened people’s sense of trust in the administration of justice and went on a vicious cycle. Although the system of summary suits in Taiwan has inherited the simple procedural lawsuit in Japan, the provisions of the system are quite simple as stipulated by Japan. There are even two short sentences in the summary trial. The situation in Taiwan using simple litigation system is more than that in Japan, but its scope of application is even broader. However, its system is still not sufficiently developed. Academic circles are not paying enough attention to summary proceedings. Many details still need to be supplemented by jurisprudence and practical practice. More complete norms necessary.