案件事实为何疑难?——认知局限、事实冲突和证据形成

What is the Difficulty in Determining the Facts of Case?——Cognitive Limitation, Fact Conflict and Evidence Formation

案件事实并非是一成不变地对真相的完美重现,法官审理案件时不应仅将事实与法律简单相加。法律事实与客观事实相一致的程度将直接影响法律的适用和判决结果的正确性,实践中二者之间以及其本身都存在冲突的可能。对案件事实认知的局限属于实然层面的初级事实疑难;当面对案件事实的冲突时会出现应当如何认定的问题,该种追问亦可上升到应然的法哲学层面,而应然层面的事实认定与法律疑难一样,也需要相关的法学方法作为基础。法官通过补充侦查等方式排查案件的实然事实疑难,并结合实质性价值选择对应然的事实疑难做出认定,通过对已知事实的证明,方可对事实疑难案件形成合法且合理的定案证据,为后续的法律适用提供基础,避免刑事错案的发生。

The facts of a case are not invariable and perfectly reproduced the truth. Judges should not simply add facts to laws in handling the cases. The consistency of the legal facts and the objective facts will directly affect the application of the law and the correctness of the outcome of the judgment. There is a possibility of conflict in practice between the two. The limitation of the cognition of the facts of the case is a difficult fact in the real level. In the face of the conflict of the facts of the case, there will be the problem of how it should be identified. This kind of questioning can also rise to the level of legal philosophy, while the fact identification in the deserved level is the same as the legal difficulties, and the relevant legal methods are also needed as the basis. The judge tries to find out the real fact of the case by means of supplementary investigation and so on, and makes a cognizance of the difficult facts in combination with the substantive value selection. Through the proof of the known facts, it can form the legal and reasonable evidence of the case, and provide the basis for the subsequent legal application and avoid the misjudged cases.