论案件事实认定说理的不同维度——以彭宇案一审判决书为例  

Reconsidering the Fact-finding Reasoning in“Peng Yu”Decision

作　　者：曹志勋[1] CAO Zhi-xun

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院

出　　处：《北方法学》2020年第3期89-98,共10页Northern Legal Science

基　　金：中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助。

摘　　要：彭宇案判决书是我国近二十年来出现事实认定难题的典型裁判文书,其影响深远,值得重新审视其事实认定说理。本案中就调查程序事实的说理可以依据现有规则进一步补充。由于实体法理论上的争议,对本案中适用公平责任的要件事实存在说理困难。本案的主要证明对象为双方是否相撞这一核心事实,对此同样应当充分说理,但可以在原判中依据经验法则的说理之外寻找替代方案。在证明评价上,本案中最突出的问题是如何认定相互矛盾的诉外笔录和法庭陈述内容,也即两个矛盾的直接证据的证明力。此外,经由法院外人士在社会大众间传播的"媒体事实",因其影响民众对司法的信赖,也应得到重视。The Peng Yu Judgment is a typical judgment document with fact identification problem emerged in China in the past two decades. It has far-reaching influence and it is worth re-examining on the factual findings. The reasoning of the facts of the investigation procedure in this case can be further supplemented according to the existing rules. Due to the theoretical controversy of substantive law,it is difficult to reason the facts of applying the fair responsibility in this case. The major proofing object in this case is shown by the fact whether both of parties collide with each other. The finding of this happening is supposed to be justified thoroughly,whereas an alternative approach,rather than relying on the prima facie evidence as the original decision did,is more desirable. The most crucial issue of the evidential evaluation here is the way of how to make the decision when there is some documentary evidence obtained outside the on-going civil process and some controversial factual allegation during the court hearing. Relevant is indeed the judgment of evidential value of opposing direct evidences. Also,the version of truth reported by the public media deserves more attention since it affects the trust of ordinary people in the judicial branch in China.

关 键 词：彭宇案 案件事实 要件事实 公文书证明力 媒体事实 

分 类 号：DF61[政治法律—刑法学]