司法裁判中事实认定的法理分析

发布时间：2018-05-22 14:44

本文选题：司法裁判 + 法理分析　；参考：《西南大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：通常认为,法官裁判案件首先是查明事实,解决事实问题,之后是适用法律,解决法律问题。基于这种认识,学界对司法裁判中法律事实的认定也进行了分割式的研究,诉讼法学者专注于事实的认定,而法理学者则醉心于法律适用。但是在司法审判中,事实的认定与法律的适用是一个完整的不可分割的过程,单独专注一点,不免会顾此失彼。因此,如果能以整体的视角将两者进行结合,则无论在理论上还是在司法实践上都有重要的研究价值。本文共分为三个部分:第一部分是对事实认定基本理论的论述。关于司法过程中法律事实的认定,学界一直存在着事实发现说和事实建构说两种不同的主张。发现说以主客二分为基本思维模式,主张司法过程就是主体认识客体事实的过程。建构说则主张法律事实是不同主体之间商谈建构结果。本文认为两种理论各有其合理之处,也都存在各自的缺陷。在事实的真实属性上,学界存在客观真实说和法律真实说两种相反观点。客观真实说以与客观事实相符合为真实的标准,该理论虽然能符合大众对真实的追求,但在实践中却难以操作。法律真实说则主张,法官所认定的事实只要符合实体法和证据法的规定,达到法律所认可的程度即可视为真实。这是一种比较务实的观点,但在逻辑上也存在难以自洽的地方。最后,本文将司法裁判中所认定的事实区分为案件事实和法律事实两个层次。案件事实是用证据证明的生活事实,认定案件事实解决的是“实际发生了什么事情”。法律事实是对已经认定的案件事实的法律定性,所解决的是发生的事情“是什么”。第二部分讨论的是案件事实的认定依据。本文得出的结论是,案件事实的认定是法官依据证据和经验进行逻辑推理的结果。其中证据提供逻辑推理的小前提,经验提供逻辑推理的大前提,事实认定中的逻辑形式随着具体案件的不同而不同。证据之所以能够证明案件事实,是因为证据中所蕴含的事实信息,根据证据所蕴含的信息的量的不同,可以将证据分为直接证据和间接证据。直接证据以相互印证的方式证明着案件事实,间接证据以体系的方式完成着对案件事实的证明。证据到证据事实的逻辑形式是由果朔因的推导,证据事实到案件事实的逻辑形式可以区分为同一律、合取律、演绎逻辑和事实推定。经验是法官进行认知和判断的基础,因而也是认定案件事实的基础,在案件事实认定中,必然存在着经验的运用,同时,由于经验具有盖然性,对经验的不当运用会导致案件事实认定的错误。第三部分讨论的是案件事实的法律定性。经证据所证明的案件事实在本质上仍然是生活事实,该事实要想作为最终的裁判依据需要进行法律上的定性,即用实体法律规范对其进行评价,为此就需要对实体法律规范和案件事实进行相互解释。案件事实与法律规范的结合模式有归类模式和等置模式两种,归类模式认为,案件事实与法律规范的结合其实质是将具体的案件事实归入法律规范所代表的类事实当中,案件事实要归入法律规范,需要具备相应的法律构成要件。等置模式认为,案件事实与法律规范的结合,实际上是将实然的个案事实与抽象的法律规范进行等置,以发现事实与规范意义的同一性。最后,当法律规范不能够为当下的案件事实提供现成的答案时,法官需要借助法外资源以价值评价的方式来填补法律的疏漏。
[Abstract]:It is generally believed that the judge's referee case is first to find out the facts, to solve the fact problems, and then to apply the law to solve the legal problems. Based on this understanding, the academic circles have also carried out a split study of the legal facts in the judicial referees, and the legal scholars are focused on the fact finding, while the jurisprudence scholars are obsessed with the application of the law. But in the case of legal scholars, the legal scholars are concerned with the application of the law. In judicial trial, the identification of the facts and the application of the law are a complete and inseparable process. A single focus will not be avoided. Therefore, it has important research value both in theory and in judicial practice. This article is divided into three parts: the first part: the first part It is a discussion of the basic theory of fact finding. There are two different opinions on the identification of legal facts in the judicial process. There are two different opinions on the fact discovery and the fact construction in the academic circle. It is found that the principle of the subject and the guest is two points as the basic thinking mode, and the judicial process is the process of the subject's understanding of the object. The author argues that the two theories have their own rationalization and their respective defects. In the true nature of the facts, there are two opposite views of the objective truth and the truth of the law. The theory of objective truth is in conformity with the objective facts as the true standard, although the theory can conform to the truth of the public. It is difficult to operate in practice, but it is difficult to operate in practice. The truth of the law asserts that the fact that the fact is recognized by the judge as long as it is in conformity with the provisions of the substantive law and the law of evidence can be seen as true. This is a more pragmatic view, but it is logically difficult to be self consistent. Finally, this article will be in the judicial referee. The facts identified are divided into two levels: case facts and legal facts. The case fact is a living fact proved by evidence, and the fact that the case facts are resolved is "what is actually happening". The legal fact is the legal nature of the facts that have been identified and what is the "what is". The second part of the discussion is discussed. The conclusion is that the identification of the facts of the case is the result of logical reasoning by the judge according to the evidence and experience. The evidence provides the small premise of logical reasoning, the experience provides the big premise for logical reasoning, and the logical form in the fact identification is different with the specific case. In order to prove the fact of the case, it is because of the fact information contained in the evidence. According to the difference of the amount of information contained in the evidence, the evidence can be divided into direct evidence and indirect evidence. The direct evidence proves the fact of the case in a mutually corroborated way, and the indirect evidence has completed the proof of the case facts in a systematic way. The logical form of the facts of evidence is derived from the cause of fruit and Shuo. The logical form of evidence facts to the fact of the case can be divided into the same law, the conjunctive law, the deductive logic and the fact presumption. Experience is the basis for the judge to recognize and judge, and therefore is the basis for the identification of the facts of the case, and the application of experience is inevitable in the fact finding of the case. At the same time, due to the probability of the experience, the improper use of experience will lead to the error of the fact of the case. The third part discusses the legal nature of the case fact. The facts proved by the evidence are still the fact of life in essence. The legal norms and the facts of the case should be explained to each other. The combination mode of the case fact and the legal norm has two types: the classification mode and the equivalent mode, and the combination of the case facts and the legal norms is that the actual case facts are replaced by the specific case facts into the legal norms. In the class fact of the table, the facts of the case should be classified into the legal norms and need to have the corresponding legal elements. The mode of equal placement holds that the combination of the facts of the case and the legal norms is in fact placing the actual case facts with the abstract legal norms in order to find the identity of the fact and the normative meaning. Finally, when the legal norms are not available In order to provide a ready answer to the current case facts, the judge needs to make use of extra legal resources to fill in the omission of the law by means of value evaluation.
【学位授予单位】：西南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D926.2

【参考文献】