我國刑訴法總則篇第12章證據章中，首先揭示「無罪推定」及「證據裁判主義」，第154條第1項規定：「被告未經審判證明有罪確定前，推定其為無罪。」同條第2項規定：「犯罪事實應依證據認定之，無證據不得認定犯罪事實。」再者，基於無罪推定的原理，第161條第1項規定：「檢察官就被告犯罪事實，應負舉證責任，並指出證明之方法。」明文規範檢察官舉證責任之內涵，除證據之提出外，另應就被告犯罪事實指明其證明方法，以說服法官，藉此督促檢察官善盡實行公訴之職責。
其次，關於如何依據證據來認定犯罪事實，有關證明活動的實施，第155條第2項規定應採取嚴格證明，「無證據能力，未經合法調查之證據，不得作為判斷之依據。」至於，有證據能力之證據經合法調查後，其證據價值之判斷，第155條第1項規定：「證據之證明力，由法院本於確信自由判斷。但不得違背經驗法則及論理法則」，揚棄過去由法律明定證據證明力之「證據法定主義」。精簡的三個條文五項規定，架構了支配刑事審判證據法則的體系。本學期以刑事證據法則作為專題研究課題，在正當法律程序的理念下分別探討嚴格證明法則、證據能力、調查程序、證明程度及舉證責任等相關子題，期使同學對於刑事證據法能有體系及深入的理解。

In the evidence chapter of Chapter 12 of the General Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law of our country, the "presumption of innocence" and "evidence-based adjudication doctrine" are first revealed. Article 154, item 1, stipulates: "The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial." Item 2 of the same article stipulates: "The facts of a crime shall be determined based on evidence, and the facts of a crime shall not be determined without evidence." Furthermore, based on The principle of presumption of innocence, Article 161, Paragraph 1, stipulates: "The prosecutor shall bear the burden of proving the facts of the defendant's crime and indicate the method of proof." The connotation of the prosecutor's burden of proof shall be clearly stipulated. In addition to the presentation of evidence, the method of proof of the defendant's criminal facts shall be specified in order to convince the judge and thereby urge the prosecutor to fulfill his duties of public prosecution.
Secondly, regarding how to determine criminal facts based on evidence and the implementation of proof activities, Article 155 Paragraph 2 stipulates that strict proof should be adopted. "Evidence without evidential capacity and without legal investigation shall not be used as the basis for judgment." As for evidence with evidentiary capacity, Article 155 Paragraph 1 of Article 155 Paragraph 1 of Article 155 Paragraph 1 of the judgment on the value of evidence after legal investigation states: "The probative force of evidence shall be freely judged by the court based on its conviction. However, it shall not violate the rules of experience and the rules of reasoning." This abandons the "evidence legalism" in the past where the probative force of evidence is clearly determined by law. The streamlined three articles and five provisions have structured the system that governs the evidence rules in criminal trials. This semester takes criminal evidence law as a special research topic. Under the concept of due legal process, we will explore relevant sub-topics such as strict proof rules, evidence capacity, investigation procedures, degree of proof and burden of proof, etc., in order to enable students to have a systematic and in-depth understanding of criminal evidence law.

授課教師參考著作
1. 1999年4月，傳聞證據，收錄於『刑事訴訟起訴狀一本主義及配套措施』一書，最高法院學術研究會出版，第383—492頁。
2. 1999年12月，司法警察人員「查訪報告」之證據能力，月旦法學第55期，第182—193頁。
3. 2000年11月，現行法下如何落實被告詰問權之保障，月旦法學第66期，第36-47頁。
4. 2000年12月，論刑事訴訟證據法則之修正，律師雜誌255期，第23-46頁。
5. 2001年10月，當事人進行原則下之證據調查與交互詰問，收錄於『刑事訴訟起訴狀一本主義及配套措施』(下)一書，最高法院學術研究會出版，第235—315頁。
6. 2003年6月，刑事訴訟之舉證責任與推定，收錄於『刑事證據法則之新發展』黃東熊教授七秩祝壽論文集一書，第437-494頁。
7. 2003年6月，刑事程序中DNA鑑定之研究，成大法學第五期，第85-119頁。
8. 2003年6月，傳聞法則之理論及其實踐，月旦法學第97期，第85-106頁。
9. 2003年7月，共同被告之調查，律師雜誌，第286期，頁97－135。
10. 2004年7月，傳聞法則與直接審理，月旦法學教室第21期，第133-136頁。
11. 2004年9月，嚴格證明法則，月旦法學教室第23期，第132-136頁。
12. 2004年10月，刑事程序鑑定之證據法則，萬國法律第137期，第32-44頁。
13. 2004年10月，違法證據排除法則之回顧與展望，月旦法學第113期，第27-50頁。
14. 2006年9月，被害人之訊問與具結，月旦法學教室第47期，第22-23頁。
15. 2006年11月，證人未經具結之檢訊筆錄之效力，月旦法學教室第49期，第20-21頁。
16. 2007年4月，偵查中證人之具結與傳聞例外之適用－評九四年台上字三二七七號刑事判決－，台灣法學第93期，第238-258頁。
17. 2007年5月，傳聞法則及其例外之實務運作問題檢討，台灣法學第94期，第128-153頁。
18. 2007年9月，評大法官解釋582號暨592號解釋，收錄於『最高法院裁判與法學理論之實踐』乙書，第651-698頁。
19. 2008年7月，貪瀆犯罪「窩裡反」條款與「刑事免責」之檢討，日新司法年刊，第8期，第96-101頁。
20. 2008年11月，證據能力有無之舉證問題研究，收錄於『刑與思─林山田教授紀念論文集』乙書，第461-491頁。
21. 2008年12月，論檢察官舉證責任與法院職權調查之界限--以最高法院92台上128號刑事判例為中心，收錄於『刑事證據法--最高法院學術研究叢書(16)』，第295-328頁。
22. 2009年1月，我國特別偵查組之現況與未來，檢察新論，第5期，第20-22
23. 2010年4月，當事人一方所為之秘密錄音──評日本千葉地院平成三年三月二十九日判決，裁判時報第2期，第151-158頁。
24. 2010年6月，共同被告於檢察官偵查訊問時所為之陳述之證據能力，台灣法學雜誌第153期，第217-222頁。
25. 2010年8月，醫療刑事訴訟之證明活動，月旦法學雜誌第183期，第5-20頁。
26. 2011年04月，改善我國刑事鑑定制度之芻議-兼論專家證人之地位與功能，全國律師，第15卷第4期，第87-104頁。

Reference works by instructors
1. In April 1999, hearsay evidence was included in the book "One-Purpose Doctrine of Criminal Prosecutions and Supporting Measures", published by the Supreme Court Academic Research Association, pp. 383-492.
2. December 1999, the evidentiary ability of judicial police officers’ “investigation reports”, Yuedan Law Journal, Issue 55, pp. 182-193.
3. November 2000, How to implement the protection of the defendant’s right to cross-examine under the current law, Yuedan Law Journal, Issue 66, pp. 36-47.
4. December 2000, on the revision of the law of evidence in criminal proceedings, Lawyer Magazine, Issue 255, pp. 23-46.
5. In October 2001, the parties conducted an evidence investigation and cross-examination based on the principle, which was included in the book "The Doctrine of Single Complaint and Supporting Measures in Criminal Procedure" (Part 2), published by the Supreme Court Academic Research Association, pp. 235-315.
6. In June 2003, the burden of proof and presumptions in criminal proceedings were included in the book "New Developments in Criminal Evidence Laws" by Professor Huang Dongxiong's Seventh Rank Birthday Essays, pp. 437-494.
7. June 2003, Research on DNA Identification in Criminal Procedure, National Cheng Kung University Law Journal Issue 5, pp. 85-119.
8. June 2003, The Theory and Practice of the Hearsay Law, Yuedan Law Issue 97, pp. 85-106.
9. July 2003, investigation of co-defendants, Lawyer Magazine, Issue 286, pp. 97-135.
10. July 2004, Hearsay Rule and Direct Trial, Yuedan Law Classroom No. 21, pp. 133-136.
11. September 2004, Strict Proving Laws, Yuedan Law Classroom No. 23, pp. 132-136.
12. October 2004, Evidence Rules for Criminal Procedure Identification, Law of All Nations Issue 137, pp. 32-44.
13. October 2004, Review and Outlook of the Rules for the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence, Yuedan Law Issue 113, pp. 27-50.
14. September 2006, Victim’s Interrogation and Confirmation, Yuedan Law Classroom Issue 47, pp. 22-23.
15. November 2006, The validity of interrogation transcripts where witnesses have not committed themselves, Yuedan Law Classroom, Issue 49, pp. 20-21.
16. April 2007, Witness's Confirmation and the Application of the Hearsay Exception in Investigation - Comment on the 1994 Taiwanese Criminal Judgment No. 3277 -, Taiwan Jurisprudence Issue 93, pp. 238-258.
17. May 2007, Review of Practical Operation Issues of the Hearsay Rule and its Exceptions, Taiwan Jurisprudence Issue 94, pp. 128-153.
18. In September 2007, the Chief Justice’s Interpretation No. 582 and Interpretation No. 592 were included in the "Supreme Court Judgments and the Practice of Legal Theory" Book B, pages 651-698.
19. July 2008, a review of the "rebellion" clauses and "criminal immunity" for corruption crimes, Nisshin Judicial Annual, Issue 8, pp. 96-101.
20. In November 2008, a study on the evidentiary issue of the ability of evidence was included in Book B of "Crime and Thoughts - Memorial Essays of Professor Lin Shantian", pages 461-491.
21. In December 2008, on the boundaries between the prosecutor’s burden of proof and the court’s authority to investigate—centered on Criminal Case No. 128 on Taiwan 92 of the Supreme Court, included in “Criminal Evidence Law—Supreme Court Academic Research Series (16)”, pages 295-328.
22. January 2009, The current situation and future of my country’s special investigation teams, Procuratorial Review, Issue 5, pp. 20-22
23. In April 2010, a secret recording made by one of the parties - Comment on the judgment of the Chiba District Court of Japan on March 29, 2010, Judicial Times No. 2, pp. 151-158.
24. June 2010, the evidentiary ability of the co-defendant’s statements during the prosecutor’s investigation and interrogation, Taiwan Law Journal, Issue 153, pp. 217-222.
25. August 2010, Proof activities in medical criminal proceedings, Yuedan Law Journal, Issue 183, pp. 5-20.
26. April 2011, Preliminary Discussion on Improving my country's Criminal Identification System - Also Discussing the Status and Function of Expert Witnesses, National Lawyers, Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 87-104.