本文選題：司法裁判 + 法理分析　； 參考：《西南大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：通常認為,法官裁判案件首先是查明事實,解決事實問題,之后是適用法律,解決法律問題�；谶@種認識,學界對司法裁判中法律事實的認定也進行了分割式的研究,訴訟法學者專注于事實的認定,而法理學者則醉心于法律適用。但是在司法審判中,事實的認定與法律的適用是一個完整的不可分割的過程,單獨專注一點,不免會顧此失彼。因此,如果能以整體的視角將兩者進行結合,則無論在理論上還是在司法實踐上都有重要的研究價值。本文共分為三個部分:第一部分是對事實認定基本理論的論述。關于司法過程中法律事實的認定,學界一直存在著事實發(fā)現(xiàn)說和事實建構說兩種不同的主張。發(fā)現(xiàn)說以主客二分為基本思維模式,主張司法過程就是主體認識客體事實的過程。建構說則主張法律事實是不同主體之間商談建構結果。本文認為兩種理論各有其合理之處,也都存在各自的缺陷。在事實的真實屬性上,學界存在客觀真實說和法律真實說兩種相反觀點�？陀^真實說以與客觀事實相符合為真實的標準,該理論雖然能符合大眾對真實的追求,但在實踐中卻難以操作。法律真實說則主張,法官所認定的事實只要符合實體法和證據(jù)法的規(guī)定,達到法律所認可的程度即可視為真實。這是一種比較務實的觀點,但在邏輯上也存在難以自洽的地方。最后,本文將司法裁判中所認定的事實區(qū)分為案件事實和法律事實兩個層次。案件事實是用證據(jù)證明的生活事實,認定案件事實解決的是“實際發(fā)生了什么事情”。法律事實是對已經認定的案件事實的法律定性,所解決的是發(fā)生的事情“是什么”。第二部分討論的是案件事實的認定依據(jù)。本文得出的結論是,案件事實的認定是法官依據(jù)證據(jù)和經驗進行邏輯推理的結果。其中證據(jù)提供邏輯推理的小前提,經驗提供邏輯推理的大前提,事實認定中的邏輯形式隨著具體案件的不同而不同。證據(jù)之所以能夠證明案件事實,是因為證據(jù)中所蘊含的事實信息,根據(jù)證據(jù)所蘊含的信息的量的不同,可以將證據(jù)分為直接證據(jù)和間接證據(jù)。直接證據(jù)以相互印證的方式證明著案件事實,間接證據(jù)以體系的方式完成著對案件事實的證明。證據(jù)到證據(jù)事實的邏輯形式是由果朔因的推導,證據(jù)事實到案件事實的邏輯形式可以區(qū)分為同一律、合取律、演繹邏輯和事實推定。經驗是法官進行認知和判斷的基礎,因而也是認定案件事實的基礎,在案件事實認定中,必然存在著經驗的運用,同時,由于經驗具有蓋然性,對經驗的不當運用會導致案件事實認定的錯誤。第三部分討論的是案件事實的法律定性。經證據(jù)所證明的案件事實在本質上仍然是生活事實,該事實要想作為最終的裁判依據(jù)需要進行法律上的定性,即用實體法律規(guī)范對其進行評價,為此就需要對實體法律規(guī)范和案件事實進行相互解釋。案件事實與法律規(guī)范的結合模式有歸類模式和等置模式兩種,歸類模式認為,案件事實與法律規(guī)范的結合其實質是將具體的案件事實歸入法律規(guī)范所代表的類事實當中,案件事實要歸入法律規(guī)范,需要具備相應的法律構成要件。等置模式認為,案件事實與法律規(guī)范的結合,實際上是將實然的個案事實與抽象的法律規(guī)范進行等置,以發(fā)現(xiàn)事實與規(guī)范意義的同一性。最后,當法律規(guī)范不能夠為當下的案件事實提供現(xiàn)成的答案時,法官需要借助法外資源以價值評價的方式來填補法律的疏漏。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：西南大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D926.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 魏治勛;;法律解釋:在對象與目標的張力中探尋規(guī)范含義[J];南通大學學報(社會科學版);2017年01期

2 縱博;;論訴訟證明中的邏輯和經驗[J];新疆大學學報(哲學·人文社會科學版);2016年02期

3 謝暉;;法律規(guī)范的事實還原與司法中法律知識的生成[J];法律科學(西北政法大學學報);2015年04期

4 李蘇林;;證據(jù)裁判原則下的案件事實認定[J];山西大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2015年03期

5 紀格非;;直接證據(jù)與間接證據(jù)劃分標準的反思與重構[J];法學論壇;2013年01期

6 胡學軍;;再論推導作為訴訟證明的邏輯[J];河北法學;2013年01期

7 王彬;;法律適用的詮釋學模式及其反思[J];中南大學學報(社會科學版);2011年06期

8 張繼成;;命題獲得證據(jù)地位的內在邏輯[J];中國法學;2011年04期

9 尚華;;論建構主義與案件事實的認定[J];前沿;2011年15期

10 周峗;;“道成肉身”:論庭審過程中法律事實的生成[J];中外法學;2011年03期

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 楊波;法律事實建構論[D];吉林大學;2007年

2 楊建軍;論法律事實[D];山東大學;2006年

，

本文編號：1922503