我國現行刑事訴訟上訴審之結構，通說認為第二審採覆審制，第三審一般則稱為法律審，具有事後審查之性質。然此圓筒型訴訟制度，對於事實的反覆認定，因與案發時點漸行漸遠，非但無助於真相之釐清，撇開訴訟資源的浪費不談，案件不斷的上訴、不斷的發回，程序的久懸不決對被告本身而言即構成折磨懲罰，亦難昭人民信才。本文針對民國八十五年至九十二年十月，經最高法院發回六次以上之案件，統計分析其遭多次發回之原因，並透過訪談之方法進行實證調查，試圖透過第三審之發回判決來掌握第二審法院審理上之問題，並觀察第三審法院有無以合於現行刑事訴訟法之規定進行審判，進而以研析結果為基礎，尋求建構適合我國國情之上訴制度。 本研究發現，就發回原因的事實類型整體觀察，主要可發現第三七九條第十款「應調查而未予調查」之情形，主要包括審判範圍內之事實漏未調查、調查必要性及調查可能性三個部分。其中，有無調查可能性的認知不同，是造成多次發回的重要因素。有無調查之可能，屬事實問題，高等法院事實審理之結果，對已盡調查能事，卻已無調查可能者，自應善盡說明義務，最高法院並應尊重高院的認定。久懸不決的案件，如確已無其他證據可資調查，事實關係又不明者，應本於無罪推定原則而為認定。再者，多次發回更審案件之發回原因集中在應調查證據未予調查，而且癥結存在於證據有無調查可能的判斷上。此項問題之原因，主要應可歸究於偵查蕉證粗糙及起訴的不精緻。就此部分而言，上訴審制度的變革，僅屬下游的工程而已，重點應在於有效提昇偵查品質、慎重篩選起訴案件，強化刑事程序的上游工程。

It is an important issue about appeals in the criminal procedure, but it has also been overlooked in this area for a long time. It is an old and deeply-rooted problem about the appellate criminal procedure in our country. Many criticize that its structure and procedures are not clear and simple, not be efficient and speedy. It seems to us that the main reasons are that the prosecution is rough on evidences and the criminal appellate system is complex and not effective. The main purpose of appeal is to correct wrong decisions and clarify the law. The appellate criminal procedure should bring finality to the criminal process, subject to the need to safeguard either side from clear and serious injustice. It should be clear and simple in its structure and procedures; it should be efficient and speedy in its use of judges and other resources in righting injustice and in declaring and applying the law. This research recommends that it is necessary to limit appellants’ grounds of appeal, for instant the conviction was wrong as a material irregularity in the course of the trial, or inappropriate and excessive sentences, or significant mistakes of fact. We consider that the appellate courts should adopt the rule of presumption of innocence in which they declare and develop the criminal law in a principled and more due way, so as to solve the delay manner in appellate cases. Furthermore, it is also important to admit appeals against sentence only, not involve any points of law or as to relevance of facts.