Is the reasoning part of the judgment to determine the facts or to apply the law?

In recent years, with the continuous advancement of judicial reform, the institutional level of court decisions is also constantly improving. However, on the whole, there is still a big gap between the quality of the judgment and the public's requirements. To this end, the Supreme People's Court called for speeding up the reform and improving the quality of judgment documents, and issued samples of judgments, which put forward higher requirements for the production of judgments, "enhancing the rationality of judgments" and "making judgment documents a carrier to show the public the image of judicial justice and a vivid teaching material for legal education". Civil judgment is the concentrated expression of the people's court exercising judicial power according to law, and it is the most refined and complete summary of the whole litigation activities. It is not only an important basis to judge the professional quality of judges, but also a judicial product to measure the quality of handling cases, publicize judicial justice and embody the true meaning of law. A good civil judgment requires not only a clear statement of facts and strong evidence to prove the facts, but also thorough and thorough reasoning to ensure the accuracy of the judgment result and the correct implementation of the law. The reasoning of civil judgment has become the focus of current civil judgment reform. First, the performance of the lack of reasoning in China's civil judgments At present, many civil judgments made by judges in China are unreasonable. There are many manifestations of illogicality in civil judgments, which can be summarized as follows: (1) The summary of the reasons for the parties' defense is too general and abstract. Judgment documents can not fully and accurately reflect the reasons stated by the parties, some deliberately omit the opinions and reasons of the parties in a general way, and some even misinterpret the reasons of the parties at will. (2) The fact-finding part does not reflect the evidence, cross-examination and court authentication of the parties. In the judgment, the evidence of the parties is not listed or completely listed, or although the evidence of the parties is listed in the judgment, the relationship between facts and evidence is not explained, and the disputed facts of the parties are not written in combination with the evidence, cross-examination and expert opinions of the court. Do not explain the reasons for the evidence that should be accepted, do not explain the reasons for the evidence that should not be accepted or accepted, do not accept the evidence that should be accepted, take it out of context, choose it at will, and pervert the law. (3) The reasoning part of judgment is insufficient, opaque and incomplete. Many judgments do not give reasons, or although there are arguments, they are inaccurate and far-fetched. Instead of analyzing the opinions of litigants and the specific circumstances of the case, they list the arguments of the same type of cases and use some formula languages such as "no factual and legal basis", "conclusive evidence" and "should be supported according to law". Some people are unreasonable about the litigant's claim, only choose what they need, choose the part that is beneficial to the judgment, and don't mention or mention less about other parts; Some reasoning simply lists and accumulates evidence and laws, but lacks the analysis and identification of evidence, the analysis of opinions on the application of laws, and even fails to reveal the internal relationship among evidence, laws and conclusions. (4) The trial process of the case is insufficient. There are no matters such as filing time, court session time, additional parties and court session time in the first writing, which makes the trial of the case lack transparency and cannot fully reflect the trial process of the case. Second, the practical significance of full reasoning in civil judgment. Fully reasoning in civil judgments can reduce the unfair behavior of judges in trials and help prevent judicial corruption such as "behind-the-scenes trading" and "black-box operation"; Secondly, the full reasoning of the judgment can improve the professional quality of the judge, thus reducing the unnecessary appeal rate and revision rate; Thirdly, the full reasoning of the judgment can make the judge fully use a large number of cases, precedents, famous scholars and other judges' views in this field to explain the process of understanding the case and the legitimacy of the judgment conclusion, which is conducive to changing the rigid "stereotyped writing" style and adapting to the needs of the reform of international judgment documents. Third, the method of fully reasoning in civil judgments (1) and the evaluation of evidence are open to enhance the transparency of reasoning. The openness of evidence evaluation refers to the judge's inner conviction based on the analysis and judgment of all the evidence, including the understanding of the facts of the case and legal opinions, which are expounded to the parties or in the text of the judgment, in order to obtain the understanding, understanding and support of the parties and the public. The openness of evidence evaluation is reflected in the following aspects in civil adjudication: the formation process of public judge authentication. In fact, the process of authentication is a process in which a judge judges the evidence of a case through trial with his own knowledge and experience, and gives reasons for his previous perception and judgment. It is both a process of legal reasoning and a process of legal interpretation. Specifically, in the judgment, the judge publicly shows his authentication opinions obtained through legal reasoning and legal interpretation, publicly shows the reasons for the judge's rational judgment and evidence selection, announces the specific content of the accepted evidence, and analyzes and demonstrates the objectivity, relevance and legitimacy of the evidence, so that the evidence forms a chain-like evidence force that is interlocking and advancing step by step. In addition, the evidence that cannot be accepted should also be rejected according to reason, indicating that the evidence identified is logically related to the judgment. The openness of the judge's authentication process reflects the formal justice of the judgment and the credibility of the facts ascertained by the judgment. Announce the reasons why the judge supports and denies the defense of the parties. Civil litigation is based on the defense of the parties. However, in civil trials, not all the interests advocated by the parties are reasonable, and all the arguments are well-founded. For these problems, the judge should not evade when making a judgment, but should openly demonstrate the process of supporting or denying the parties' claims in a clear-cut manner, and explain the original reasons and basis. In addition, it should also reflect the places where the parties have doubts and misunderstandings about the direction or situation of the trial, clarify the judge's views and reasons on these issues, eliminate the doubts and misunderstandings of the parties, and improve the trust of the parties and the public in the judgment. Publicize the reasons for the judge's decision. In order not to let the parties feel that they have raided the referee, the judge must disclose the evaluation process and reasons for his judgment results in the text of the judgment. First, it demonstrates that the judge's summary of the parties' plea and the focus of the dispute are appropriate; The second is to combine the accepted evidence, analyze and demonstrate the evaluation facts that the judge is convinced of, and fully reflect the whole process of proof, cross-examination and authentication; The third is to analyze and demonstrate the reasons for applying the law. In short, the openness of evidence evaluation urges the judge to prove the rationality and legitimacy of his judgment as much as possible, enhance the transparency of the judgment and urge the parties to accept the judgment. At the same time, the more detailed the judge's exposition of the facts and the reasons for the judgment, the greater the openness of the evaluation evidence, the more sufficient the reasons for the judgment result, and the greater the restrictions on the judge's discretion and arbitrariness, thus improving the rationality and legitimacy of the judgment result. In addition, the disclosure of evaluation evidence is also beneficial for lawyers, parties and the public to supervise the judge's judgment behavior, thus promoting the judge to be more conscientious and make a fair judgment. (two), according to the facts, enhance the credibility of the judgment. Reasoning on the basis of facts is to analyze and demonstrate the focus of disputes between the parties and distinguish right from wrong. The focus of the dispute is based on the facts of the case, and the facts of the case are the basis of the judgment. Therefore, if the focus of the dispute is not accurately grasped, the facts cannot be clarified. If the facts are unclear, then the fact authentication part will be wrong, false and contradictory, and the judgment conclusion will be made based on the unclear facts, which will affect the correctness, fairness, legitimacy and rationality of the judgment conclusion. The analysis and demonstration of the focus of controversy includes two aspects: first, the focus of controversy that can be clarified mainly refers to the facts proved by evidence; Second, the focus of controversy that cannot be clarified mainly means that neither side's evidence can prove the truth of the facts. But in either case, the judge must analyze and demonstrate according to his own evaluation of the evidence and the relevant provisions of the law. The specific operations are as follows: first, according to the arguments and evidence of the parties, summarize the focus of the dispute and distinguish between the core focus and the general focus, whether it is one focus or multiple focuses; Second, closely follow the focus of various disputes, deeply analyze the specific contents of evidence, cross-examination, authentication and debate put forward by the parties in the trial, and accurately judge and reveal the internal relationship between the nature of the case and the sharing of responsibility; The third is to comment on the rights and basis advocated by the parties in the litigation focus, show whether they support adoption and explain the reasons; Fourthly, when the focus of the dispute is unclear, the judge should demonstrate that the party with the burden of proof should bear the legal responsibility of losing the case according to the principle of burden of proof distribution. Fifth, to analyze and demonstrate the focus of the dispute, we should strengthen the logical relationship and inevitable connection between evidence analysis and fact finding, embody the proof standard of "probability is dominant" or "excluding all reasonable doubts", and make the facts, reasons and text coherent and unified, thus enhancing the credibility of the judgment. (3) Reasoning according to law, and enhancing the persuasiveness of the judgment. If things are the bones of reason, then jurisprudence is the soul of reason. It can be seen that "reasoning" is actually to analyze things and expound jurisprudence according to the connotation of legal provisions. The specific contents include: explaining the application of law. "Everything is established in advance, and it will be abolished if it is not foreseen", especially in legal provisions. Legislators always make predictions and analyses according to the relevant facts in social life inherent in legal needs, and then legislate. Therefore, the process of a judge applying the law is actually the process of a judge interpreting the law. The judge's responsibility is to interpret the law according to his sincere understanding of the law when it is applied to personal occasions. The judge's duty is to comment on the facts of the case and judge the merits of the case according to the guidance of the law. At the same time, through the interpretation of the law, the abstract legal provisions become concrete and practical and effective, thus revealing the inevitable and intuitive connection between the legal connotation and the actual case facts, and it is clear at a glance who is right and who is wrong. Make up for the limitations of the law. Social life is changeable and new things emerge one after another. Relatively stable laws are always difficult to cover new situations and new things in real life, which brings legal gaps or limitations. Therefore, when interpreting the law, the judge should not only explain the connotation of the existing law, but also use his profound legal theory, scientific way of thinking, rich work experience and ability to analyze and judge, reveal the undiscovered legal meaning and make up for the limitations of the law. This kind of legal interpretation, which makes up for the limitations, mainly expounds the axioms of law or the doctrines and creeds of law, and is also a kind of legal interpretation. In short, jurisprudence is the link between the facts of the case and the verdict. The more sufficient the reasons for discussing the law in the judgment, the more the parties and the public can believe in the fairness and authority of the judgment. (4) improve the situation and enhance the affinity of judgment. "Love", from the perspective of social life, is "love" and a summary of human secular desires; From the perspective of legal life, it is "understanding", which is a kind of recognition that conforms to public opinion, social order and good customs, and is obtained by the judge's rational analysis and judgment on the specific legal acts of the parties according to the case and legal principles and social ethics. This recognition is the result of the judge's interpretation of the law and the reflection of the judge's inner conscience. Therefore, in the judgment, the judge should not only talk about things, jurisprudence, but also reason. Reason is the cornerstone of justice, jurisprudence is the building of justice, and reason is the glorious monument of justice. It can be said that rationality, jurisprudence and rationality constitute the strong vitality of judgment. The feeling reflected in the judgment is the judge's broad, open-minded and rational mentality, and it is also the best display of judicial credibility. The reason for saying this is that "feeling" is not a legal norm, and judges cannot directly perceive its existence from legal provisions. Judges rely on savvy and aura to perceive it, understand it, discover its existence, discover its essence and grasp its tolerance. Therefore, it is reasonable not to be arbitrary in judgment. In my opinion, reasoning is mainly aimed at the following situations: (1) When the legal provisions are incomplete and unclear, the judge should understand, analyze, judge and explain the truth according to the true meaning reflected between the lines of the legal provisions or the purpose of the legislator; (2) When the legal provisions are defective, we should reason from the background of the object of knowledge, including culture, tradition and thought. , within a certain range, according to the value orientation of the principle of justice; (3) Make a rational analysis according to the needs of the situation. At this time, it is necessary to clarify the reasons, mainly from the aspects of social public order and good customs, human feelings and things, and social fairness and justice requirements. But for whatever reason, mediation should embody the following contents: first, it conforms to the meaning of law, that is, it conforms to the spirit of law; Second, the people's feelings are smooth, which reflects the socialist human feelings; Third, it meets the needs of justice, justice, fairness and reasonable value orientation. In short, the reasons can be explained thoroughly and clearly, which not only enhances the credibility of the judgment, but also enhances the affinity of the judgment. Author: Jiangdu City, Jiangsu Province, People's Law