本文選題：行政證據(jù)　切入點：刑事訴訟　出處：《浙江工商大學》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國的行政執(zhí)法和刑事司法銜接機制已經(jīng)發(fā)展的較為成熟,但是針對其中的證據(jù)銜接問題卻少有規(guī)定,理論研究也比較薄弱。最高人民法院、最高人民檢察院、公安部、司法部聯(lián)合出臺的《關于辦理侵犯知識產(chǎn)權刑事案件適用法律若干問題的意見》首次對行政證據(jù)材料的刑事證據(jù)能力作出了規(guī)定,但是由于其法律效力較低,難以在司法實踐中發(fā)揮作用。新《刑事訴訟法》明確規(guī)定了行政機關在行政執(zhí)法和查辦案件過程中收集的證據(jù)材料在刑事訴訟中可以作為證據(jù)使用,這是兩法銜接機制發(fā)展的一大突破,但是僅僅用一款條文來對證據(jù)銜接這個重要的問題進行規(guī)定,可能無法達到預期的效果。本文主要采用分類、比較、法條解釋、實證研究等方法對行政機關收集的證據(jù)材料在刑事訴訟中的運用問題進行了全面的剖析和闡述。 文章在引言部分主要闡述了行政機關和刑事司法機關證據(jù)銜接問題的現(xiàn)狀、新《刑事訴訟法》第五十二條規(guī)定出臺的背景以及研究這個論題的重要性和新穎性。文章主體內(nèi)容分為四個部分,具體研究思路和設計如下： 第一部分是對行政證據(jù)材料在刑事訴訟中運用的基本理論的研究。這一部分首先闡述了行政證據(jù)的內(nèi)涵,對“證據(jù)”和“證據(jù)材料’進行了區(qū)別分析,然后對行政證據(jù)與刑事訴訟證據(jù)進行了比較研究,總結了二者的共同點和差異性,最后對行政證據(jù)在刑事訴訟中運用的價值進行了分析。 第二部分是分析行政證據(jù)材料在刑事訴訟中運用存在的問題。首先說明我國現(xiàn)行立法對行政證據(jù)材料在刑事訴訟中的運用規(guī)定的不夠完善,對很多問題沒有進行明確的規(guī)定,尤其是程序性的規(guī)定,不同的部門針對這個問題所作的法律解釋之間存在矛盾,這些問題都將導致這個新規(guī)定在司法實踐中不能得到很好地適用。其次對新規(guī)定在實施過程中可能產(chǎn)生的問題進行了分析、預測。 第三部分是行政證據(jù)材料在刑事訴訟中運用的完善。這部分是文章的主體部分,主要是針對第二部分提出的不足之處進行完善。首先是針對立法中存在的問題需采取的措施：明確可以在刑事訴訟中使用的行政證據(jù)種類,對行政證據(jù)材料在刑事訴訟中運用的具體程序作出規(guī)定,推進法律解釋的統(tǒng)一化；其次是針對新規(guī)定在實施過程可能存在的問題進行的完善,主要是加強檢察機關對行政機關證據(jù)收集和移送的監(jiān)督。 第四部分是行政證據(jù)材料在刑事訴訟中有效運用的配套制度和措施。通過提高行政機關的素質(zhì)和取證工作能力、優(yōu)化其取證方法以及建立行政機關證據(jù)認定機制來完善行政機關證據(jù)收集工作,建立行政機關與公安司法機關工作銜接機制以及推動行政機關與公安司法機關證據(jù)法律文書的統(tǒng)一化這幾個方面來保證行政證據(jù)材料在刑事訴訟中有效的運用。
[Abstract]:China's administrative law enforcement and criminal justice convergence mechanisms have developed more mature, but there are few regulations on evidence convergence and weak theoretical research. The Supreme people's Court, the Supreme people's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, The opinions of the Ministry of Justice on the Application of Law in handling Criminal cases of infringement of intellectual property Rights have, for the first time, stipulated the criminal evidence capacity of administrative evidence materials, but because of its low legal effect, It is difficult to play a role in judicial practice. The new Criminal procedure Law clearly stipulates that the evidential materials collected by administrative organs in the course of administrative law enforcement and investigation of cases may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. This is a breakthrough in the development of the convergence mechanism between the two laws, but it may not be possible to achieve the desired effect by providing for the important issue of evidence convergence with only one clause. This article mainly uses classification, comparison, and interpretation of the law. The application of evidence materials collected by administrative organs in criminal proceedings is analyzed and expounded by means of empirical research and other methods. In the introduction part, the article mainly expounds the current situation of evidence convergence between administrative organs and criminal judicial organs. The background of Article 52 of the new Criminal procedure Law and the importance and novelty of studying this topic. The main content of the article is divided into four parts, the specific research ideas and design are as follows:. The first part is the research on the basic theory of the application of administrative evidence materials in criminal proceedings. This part first expounds the connotation of administrative evidence, and analyzes the difference between "evidence" and "evidence material". Then the author makes a comparative study on the administrative evidence and the criminal procedural evidence, summarizes their common points and differences, and finally analyzes the value of the administrative evidence in the criminal proceedings. The second part is to analyze the problems existing in the application of administrative evidence materials in criminal proceedings. First of all, it shows that the current legislation of our country is not perfect enough in the use of administrative evidence materials in criminal proceedings, and there are no clear provisions on many issues. In particular, there is a contradiction between the procedural provisions and the legal interpretations made by different departments on this issue. These problems will lead to the new regulation can not be well applied in judicial practice. Secondly, the problems that may arise in the implementation of the new regulations are analyzed and forecasted. The third part is the perfection of the application of administrative evidence materials in criminal proceedings. This part is the main part of the article. The first is the measures to be taken to solve the problems existing in the legislation: to make clear the types of administrative evidence that can be used in criminal proceedings, The specific procedure for the application of administrative evidence materials in criminal proceedings is stipulated, and the unification of legal interpretation is promoted. Secondly, the perfection of the problems that may exist in the implementation process of the new provisions, It is mainly to strengthen procuratorial organ to administrative Orgnaization evidence collection and transfer superintendence. The fourth part is the effective use of administrative evidence materials in criminal proceedings supporting systems and measures. By improving the quality of administrative organs and the ability to collect evidence, To optimize the methods of obtaining evidence and to establish a mechanism of evidence identification in administrative organs to improve the collection of evidence in administrative organs, In order to ensure the effective application of administrative evidence materials in criminal proceedings, we should establish a mechanism to link up the work of administrative organs and public security judicial organs and promote the unification of evidence legal documents between administrative organs and public security judicial organs.
【學位授予單位】：浙江工商大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 王靜;;淺析我國的知識產(chǎn)權訴訟專家證人制度[J];產(chǎn)業(yè)與科技論壇;2006年06期

2 史容，，丁麗紅;行政訴訟證據(jù)與行政證據(jù)的區(qū)別探討[J];法商研究(中南政法學院學報);1994年03期

3 徐燕平;;行政執(zhí)法證據(jù)在刑事訴訟中的轉換與運用[J];法學;2010年04期

4 周路陽;;試論行政執(zhí)法證據(jù)向刑事司法證據(jù)的轉化[J];法制與社會;2011年09期

5 周士逵;馮之東;;行政證據(jù)制度的證明標準[J];甘肅行政學院學報;2008年01期

6 陳光中;于增尊;;關于修改后《刑事訴訟法》司法解釋若干問題的思考[J];法學;2012年11期

7 高通;;行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法銜接中的證據(jù)轉化——對《刑事訴訟法》(2012年)第52條第2款的分析[J];證據(jù)科學;2012年06期

8 郭泰和;;行政證據(jù)與刑事證據(jù)的程序銜接問題研究——《刑事訴訟法》(2012年)第52條第2款的思考[J];證據(jù)科學;2012年06期

9 張建偉;;觀察與評價刑事訴訟法再修改的幾個角度[J];法律適用;2012年03期

10 鄧忠祥;芻議行政執(zhí)法機關所收集材料的證據(jù)效能[J];檢察實踐;2002年01期

本文編號：1674992