限制自认的辨识与完善——以76份裁判文书为视角

The Recognition and Improvement of Restrictive Self-admission——From the Perspective of Analyzing Seventy-six Cases

2020年新《证据规定》第七条首次规定了限制自认条款,但该条款对限制自认的定义、分类等界定不够明晰,容易导致司法实践对该条款的适用存在分歧。通过对与该条款相关的76份裁判文书进行分析,发现司法实践中存在将认诺、单纯否认、部分自认错误辨识为限制自认的现象,且部分案件亦对限制自认的主体识别错误、对限制自认的证明责任分配辨识错误从而导致判决不公。辨识错误的原因主要为司法人员对自认和限制自认的内涵认识不一、自认制度的非约束性、对限制自认的分类不合理、对限制自认的证明责任分配认定有别、自认配套制度的缺乏等。应当明确界定自认和限制自认的构成要件,根据司法实践将限制自认分为抗辩型限制自认和否认型限制自认,明晰限制自认案件证明责任的分配,不断完善自认配套制度。

Article 7 of the new Provisions on Evidence in 2020 stipulates restrictive self-admission clause for the first time,whose definition and classification are not clear enough.Therefore,it is easy to lead to divergences of clause application in judicial practice.By analyzing76 cases related to this clause,it is found that in judicial practice,there exist the phenomena that acknowledge of approve,simple denial and partial self-admission are misidentified as restrictive self-admission.Some cases also misidentify the subject of restrictive self-admission and its distribution of burden of proof,which lead to unfair judgments.The reasons for the wrong identification are as follows:the different understanding of the connotations of self-admission and restrictive self-admission,the preclusion of self-admission,its unreasonable classification,the different recognition of its distribution of burden of proof,and the lack of the supporting system of self-admission.The constitutive elements of self-admission and restrictive self-admission should be clearly defined.Restrictive self-admission should be divided into defensive restrictive self-admission and denial restrictive self-admission according to judicial practice.The distribution of burden of proof should also be clearly defined in restrictive self-admission cases,constantly improving the supporting system of self-admission.