被告之陳述屬證據方法之一種，只要不是撒謊或攀誣，被告因真誠認罪而自白的供述，在證據法上一直占有極為重要之地位，在今日社會要被告平白俯首認罪，常屬不可能之事，因此，司法人員為利真實之發現、訴訟程序之進行或其他考量，基於法律賦與審酌量刑之裁量權限，在裁量權限內勸諭被告如實供述，使司法機關透過被告自白或認罪或有罪之陳述，作為發現真實之方法，
一方面可節省許多證據調查時間，另方面將會簡化法院原本複雜的審判程序。我國刑事訴訟法在偵查階段或審判階段，均有規範以被告認罪自白為基礎，採行多樣化的刑事司法程序，被告經由合法訊問後自願的認罪自白，不僅在證據法上有其重要性，在如何適用刑事訴訟處理機制及量刑上更屬重要審酌因素，且因為案件有無被告認罪自白，刑事訴訟乃發展出基於以被告認罪自白為前提的刑事訴訟分流處理機制，大大地提高了刑事訴訟的效率。棘手的問題在於法院或檢察官以曉諭或勸諭被告作認罪自白，將取得減刑或量刑優惠之法律上之利益，是否可評價為以不正的訊問方式或利誘而取得被告認罪自白？而司法人員勸諭被告作認罪之陳述，此勸諭是否為訊問技巧合法範圍之射程內？有無壓制其自由陳述之疑慮？仍有諸多疑議待釋疑，本文嘗試自實務上之案例解說，著予釐清。

Since voluntary and sincere confession of the accused is unusual and
admissible, it is very important to for the judiciary to find the truth with confession. The law enforcement officers are used to encouraging the accused to confess for the consideration of procedural economy. The ROC Criminal Procedure Code provides rules for voluntary confession in investigatory and trial stages, which are important in evidence law and sentence fields for the economic reasons. However, whether encouraging confessions in tough cases in exchange for sentence advantages by the judge or the public prosecutor would be seen as improper or illegal interrogation which might result in the confession inadmissible becomes questionable if judicial encouragements go beyond legal boundary and lead the accused to confess in a wrong way. This study tries to clarify these confusions by discussion of the two Supreme Court cases.