在以職業法官進行審判之歐陸法系國家，對於作為認定事實之相關證據資料不加以限制，亦即原則上證據之全部的證據價值，非但委由職業法官依據其經驗進行評價，尚且對於職業法官認定過程中所可能發生之錯誤，得藉由上訴制度以達到救濟之目的(採覆審制或續審制)。相對地，以陪審裁判(一般國民參與審判)為主軸的英美法系國家，一方面，排除容易造成一般國民對證據之證明力錯誤判斷之傳聞證據，同時在以「國民之聲音即為神明之聲音」之陪審制度下，其所為的評決，就有關事實問題部分，不承認上訴制度之存在(採事後審查審制)。然無論採行覆審制或續審制或事後審查審制之上訴結構，分別皆有其優劣之處。依傳統歐陸法系國家之思考模式，大致認為人所為之判斷容易犯錯，唯有藉由不斷重複的批判與認定，方得以使過去僅僅出現一次之犯罪事實達到正確認定，上訴審採用覆審制或續審制即為其受到肯定之處。惟雖為如此，上訴審採用覆審制或續審制之結果，最大之難題將是，如何解決一向被認為有輕視一審審判或遲行上訴之非難，以及違背迅速裁判之訴求。因此，為解決此一採用覆審制或續審制下之難題，上訴審之結構，可否採行事後審查審制，或許將成為未來思考之新方向。現行刑事訴訟法所規定者，就事實問題方面得以權利上訴(二審)，且就法律問題方面亦可提出(續審亦同)，且上訴之提起，提起者無須主張任何的上訴理由，只要對原審判決表明不服即可成立。其結果，上訴之容易而使第二審上訴案件過於繁多，進而由於第一審之審理過於草率，連帶的使得第二審之審理未能慎重周到。因此，就事實問題未能在第二審獲得結論，甚且第二審可能衍生較多之法律問題，因而造成第三審案件之負荷增加。刑事第二、三審之上訴制度，事後審查審之構造將成為考量之對象。

European legal system which employs professional judges to proceed each trial does not limit the range of evidences for fact-finding. In another word, all of the evidences can be validated by the evaluation of the professional and experienced judge. Besides, all the possible errors incurred during the identifying process held by the professional judge can be amended by the appeal system (trial de novo or continual trial is adopted) In contrast, British-American legal system which mainly based itself on jury system (participation of untrained citizens through the trial) exc1udes, on the one hand, all the hearsay or rumors which may easily mislead inexperienced citizens to wrong judgment and discourages, on the other hand, the existence of appeal system regarding factual problems (post-sentence review trial is adopted) for it believes the jury system which holds "the voice of the citizens is the voice of God" However, the appeal system, either through trial de novo and continual trial or through post-sentence review trial has its respective advantages and shortages. According to the thinking mode of traditional European legal system, it holds that all human judgment is flawed. The only way to correct identification of the criminal fact which happened only once in the past is through repetitive cross trial and recognition. Based on this ground, its appeal system adopts trial de novo or continual trial. However, the greatest problem in following this system lies in how to avoid the criticisms of ignoring the first trial or abusing the appeal right. It also goes against the need for quick sentence. To solve this problem, we consider it possible in the future to take post-sentence review trial into the appeal system. The current criminal procedure law stipulates the appeal right for the factual problems (second trial) and also for any legal problems (same with continual trial). Furthermore, the appealer can appeal against the previous sentence without posing any special reason. As a result, there are numerous cases to be tried again and again. The first trial is concluded roughly, while the second trial follows in the same way. Hence, the factual gathering can't be concluded by the second trial which may, instead, give rise to more legal problems and put off the burden onto the third trial. The second and third criminal trial of the appeal system should be examined in the constitution of the criminal appellate court.