| Obstruction of evidence means that the litigant, without the burden of proof, makes the other party with the burden of proof impossible to propose the evidence, either intentionally or blamablely, by way of action or omission, leaving the authenticity of the alleged facts in a state of unknown, thus according to the facts and opinions of the litigant with the burden of proof, advantageous adjustment will be made in the fact finding. The importance of obstruction of evidence in judicial practice is self-evident.The manifestation of obstruction of evidence varies, which repeatedly occurs in our country's judicial practice. Since the related theoretical research in our country is late, the existing legislation and the judicial interpretation are quite careless, and have a lot of loopholes, causing it unable to eliminate obstruction of evidence effectively. Theoretical research in foreign countries and Taiwan area starts quite early, the related legislation is also quite detailed to the obstruction of evidence, in order to improve the obstruction of evidence system, we must conduct in-depth study to its theory.The main body of the paper mainly divides into four parts:The first part consists of the definition, type, and theoretical foundation of the obstruction of evidence, providing theory support for the following research. The second part compares and summarizes the legislation related with obstruction of evidence in foreign countries and Taiwan area, provides reference for the improvement of our country's related system. The third part has analyzed the legislation and the present judicial situation related to obstruction of evidence, as well as the flaw existing in the legislation. The fourth part is the key part, aiming at the defect of the current obstruction of evidence system, it puts forward the improvement proposal and the countermeasure in terms of constitutive requirements, legal consequences, as well as related supporting measures of obstruction of evidence. |
PDF Full Text Request