長久以來，再審制度被視為是排除既判力的一種制度，因此，為了維持法的安定性，通常認為對本條(§420I⑥)所稱確實之新證據應採限縮的解釋。然而，此種解釋將導致無辜之人於確定判決後實質救濟的途徑遭到閉塞。事實上，由實體真實發現與法安定性的思想基礎與兩者間之關係來看，在為受判決人之利益聲請再審時應以實體真實的發現為優先，故關於確實的新證據也應該採取寬鬆的解釋，儘量地放寬本條之適用始妥。所謂的「新證據」應僅指法院未曾判斷的證據，「確實」則指綜合評價新、舊證據後對原確定判決產生合理的懷疑而言。二○○四年一月七日刑事訴訟法修正草案大致採取相同的見解，可惜草案對於許多重要的問題並未言及。因此，本文希望藉由對刑事訴訟法確實之新證據的討論，為現行不合理的制度修正提供催生的理論基礎。

For a long time, retrial system only regards as one kind of system to remove res judicata. In order to maintain the stabilization of law, the so-called "conclusive new evidence" of this provision (§420I(6)) is adopted narrower explanation. However, this explanation will cause the situation that innocent person can't obtain substantive remedy after definitive judgment. In fact, through the rationale and relation of substantive justice and stabilization of law, substantial true discovery is in the first place when applying a retrial for the benefit of defendant. Therefore, we ought to adopt broader explanation concerning conclusive new evidence, as broad as possible to the application of this provision. "New evidence" only means the evidence that courts of justice have never judged, and "conclusive" means that Judge has reasonable doubt about definitive judgment after synthetically evaluation. For the most part, criminal procedure law draft amendment promulgated in January 7 2004 also held the same opinion. But it's a pity that the draft amendment doesn't mention many other important issues. The point of this article is to discuss "conclusive new evidence" for the amendment of unreasonable retrial system in current law.