被告訴訟土行為表現，即被告在犯罪後的態度，包括行為後的態度與在刑事程序中的態度，足以顯示其可責性與危險性，乃不可忽視的刑罰截量事實。行為人「犯罪後之態度」乃刑法第57條第10款所定法院在量刑上應行審酌之事由，其他法律上甚且以明文規定得為加重或減輕其刑。現行實務上法院在個案量刑時，常將被告在法院審理階段中的訴訟行為表現模式或刑事訴訟程序中的態度，如是否坦承犯行、有無和解、有無進行辯解或抗辯之情形，予以審酌在法定刑內的加重、減輕之事例乃屬常見，並認為在被告否認犯行之部分，係屬於刑法第57條第10款「犯罪後之態度」量刑參酌因素。惟被告保持械默或拒絕陳述或否認犯行之行為，能否以之作為被告該當刑法第57條第10款「犯罪後之態度」量刑因素之依據事由，當有疑義?此不僅是當事人所重視之問題，更是法院在量刑實務上亟待釐清之重要問題。最高法院97年度臺上字第6725號、98年度臺上字第5827號、95年度臺上字第701號三則判決，乃針對法院審理階段被告訴訟行為表現模式與法院量刑上之關連性提出看法，正視到被告械默權之保障範團或否認起訴事實之犯罪，能否視之為「犯罪後之態度」認定?或者被告行使防禦權是否可以因此而說謊?被告虛偽之陳述或者供述不實，也不應為視被告犯罪後之態度不佳作為法院量刑依據?從被告防禦權行使之械默權保障迄被告在法院審理過程中所顯見的態度，能否作為法院依刑法第57條第10款認定被告「犯罪後之態度」之量刑參酌依據，殊值得重視與研究此一課題，本文即以該三則判決要冒予以闡述被告在訴訟上之行為表現模式與法院量刑關僚，應是「被告自自則量刑從輕J' r保持輛默 或消極否認犯行則量刑上不予理會J' r積極否認犯行故為虛偽攀誣則量刑從重」。

The accused' s attitudes after commission of offenses reflect his danger and culpability which could not be neglected at sentencing according to Item10 of Article 57 of the Criminal Law and other laws. Since the current practice considers the accused's attitudes， including confession， reconciliation， and plea to be factors influencing sentencing， whether the right to silence conflicts with the practice of Item 10 of Article 57 of the Criminal Law becomes a question attracting attentions of the parties. The Supreme Court cases of 95 Tai Sun 701， 97 Tai Sun 6725 and 98 Tai Sun 5827 focuses on the issue mentioned above. As a resu1t， whether exercising the right to silence and false statements at trial could be considered bad attitudes after commission of offenses ，and hence becomes a "ltem 10 of Article 57 of the Criminal Law" factor against the accused deserves serious concerns. After analyzing theses cases， this paper concludes with the following three claims: 1.confession is a favor factor for the accused; 2. remaining silence should be a neutral factor; 3. false statement might be a factor against the accused.