[問題] 另案監聽所得證據之證據力?
小弟我雖不是法律系畢業，但對法律算是蠻感興趣的，想問一下各位律師們對另案監聽
所取得證據之效力如何判定?
因為我剛查了一下實務判利:最高法院97年台上字第2633號判決
根據其判決另案監聽所得之證據如非屬通保法第五條所列舉之特定犯罪，以及非與本案
之罪名有相關聯者，則自始不可能向法官申請到通訊監察書，另案監聽所得之證據自也不
應允許使用，但為何特偵組可以將監聽柯建銘涉貪過程中，所監聽到之關說案件予以上報
；關說應該是無法再認合法條找出其罪名，最多依公務員服務法第15條，公務員針對主管
事務不得有請託或關說之行為，以及公務人員迴避法第八條，最多應該就行政懲處巴?
怎這件事情會是特偵組出來大動作說明，我實在是搞不太懂= =，法律的運作怎會這樣...
如果可以的話，可以幫轉一下八卦板嘛!!感謝!!!
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.164.30.146
→
09/11 02:21, , 1F
09/11 02:21, 1F
→
09/11 02:21, , 2F
09/11 02:21, 2F
→
09/11 02:21, , 3F
09/11 02:21, 3F
→
09/11 02:21, , 4F
09/11 02:21, 4F
→
09/11 05:30, , 5F
09/11 05:30, 5F
噓
09/11 09:37, , 6F
09/11 09:37, 6F
→
09/11 12:50, , 7F
09/11 12:50, 7F
→
09/11 13:03, , 8F
09/11 13:03, 8F
噓
09/11 16:20, , 9F
09/11 16:20, 9F
→
09/11 16:49, , 10F
09/11 16:49, 10F
→
09/11 16:50, , 11F
09/11 16:50, 11F
→
09/11 17:08, , 12F
09/11 17:08, 12F
→
09/11 17:09, , 13F
09/11 17:09, 13F
→
09/11 17:12, , 14F
09/11 17:12, 14F
→
09/11 22:28, , 15F
09/11 22:28, 15F
→
09/11 22:29, , 16F
09/11 22:29, 16F
→
09/11 22:30, , 17F
09/11 22:30, 17F
→
09/11 22:30, , 18F
09/11 22:30, 18F
→
09/11 22:31, , 19F
09/11 22:31, 19F
→
09/11 22:31, , 20F
09/11 22:31, 20F
→
09/11 22:34, , 21F
09/11 22:34, 21F
→
09/11 22:34, , 22F
09/11 22:34, 22F
→
09/11 22:38, , 23F
09/11 22:38, 23F
→
09/11 22:39, , 24F
09/11 22:39, 24F
→
09/13 16:03, , 25F
09/13 16:03, 25F
討論串 (同標題文章)