"Judicial proof process analysis -- Evidence from the perspective of the subjectivity of judicial case" (on)

Process of proof analysis -- Evidence from the perspective of the subjectivity of judicial case

Xiao Jianhua

Keywords: evidence to judge the burden to prove that the litigation

A limitation, litigation proof
    In the past the truth observer, the evidence for it in the past have the experience of the objective reality to the world "". However, it is "said" what, depends on "hear" what to. The observer into thinking or "listening" evidence through language, so that what evidence expression. [1] one of the facts of the case by the observer based on evidence of thinking and "discovery", so, if the evidence to prove what, must be convinced that it can prove what the observer.
    In general, more complex the facts of the case by the observer will vary. This difference, from the philosophy of subjective and objective dichotomy. How to evaluate the evidence the observer, is his personal experience, emotion preference and interests expression alone, but the reality is inevitable, emotion and attitude and is independent of human. So, human understanding of the fact is subjective, and past the facts of the case itself is objective. [2] subjective cognition and objective fact is a departure from the phenomenon, that philosophy must face the problem. Although, materialism is not a negative attitude towards this problem, believe that truth can be understanding, this understanding is "practice cognition practice again -- -- -- re understanding of the dialectical process of" move in circles; however, this description it is found only in the process without the observer limits of the life in the river of time. To know the future of truth for any period of time limit, it is not possible. Because of the characteristics of judicial procedure, lawsuit time limit only very short for the judge finds that the facts, so in the face of the facts of the case, a controversial case, the existing evidence can give the observer a great imagination and reasoning space; while the judges differ from man to man, to make a difference in the judgment of the cases also can hardly be avoided. That is to say, the limited evidence can provide a variety of "the facts of the case".
    The plaintiff and defendant each sticks to his argument, evidence component be roughly the same, are often difficult to distinguish the observer. The Mulla Nasrudin widely spread in the Middle East (Mulla Nasrudin) of a story, we illustrate this point. The story is that he acts as a local judge first hearing cases the confusion: the plaintiff's complaint is so convincing that the Lydians, loudly said: "I believe you are right". The court clerk requests he restrained himself, because there was no hearing the defendant. The way Ding Yu is listening to the defendant's plea, but he was again to get confused and disoriented, loudly say: "I believe you are right". The clerk of the court cannot allow this, he said: "Sir, they cannot both be right". The clerk replied: "Lu Ding, I believe you are right". Although [3] Mulla Nasrudin not occupation judgment, the plaintiff or defendant's statement of facts will convince him not doubt, however, the existing evidence of conflicting "facts", still was the modern judge to face the problem of.
    Modern Mulla Nasrudin still exist; even the Mulla Nasrudin type judge is still there, just because the occupation requirements are not publicly voice their views. Many places in the judgment of evidence can be found American legal realism jurist Frank had found the problem: the fact finding court is judicial weakness lies, the judge (a jury) is a fact not controlled and not actually control it jurisdiction. "In fact finding there always exists in a large number of non accidental reason, speculative factors, and these factors, make people impossible to meet in the outcome." Although [4], the procedure law of China adhere to the "based on the facts to the law as the criterion", however, before the conflict raised in opposition parties evidence, we can still find the judge ruled that the evidence was highly subjective color. For example, the second instance court remanded the court of first instance for retrial cases, will constitute a crime. The court of first instance shall form a collegial panel to try again, the collegial panel facts will be quite different with the original trial. Moreover, the court of second instance the fact and the first instance court ascertained that the facts are obviously different is the judicial norm, even if the parties do not raise new evidence at the trial, the judge the same in the face of first and second instance evidence.
    The reason for this phenomenon, because even if a case investigation evidence collection, all parties concerned to agent as well as the judges, the evidence obtained only limited. Large differences in fact, preservation of evidence very rare cases, the judicial officer that fact may have deviated from the objective facts. Here, analyzing a real case as an author investigation. In the case of the plaintiff Luomou (hereinafter referred to as Luo) of Taipei, sued the defendant Yang Tian (hereinafter referred to as Yang) for the return of investment of RMB 300000 yuan and interest, but the accused defended, the facts and the plaintiff give tit for tat. Both statements of each are not identical, for their own "facts", and submit the relevant evidence to prove. The plaintiff is a statement "facts":
    ROM 1997 engaged in agricultural products and handicrafts procurement in Fujian Province, and then a foreign trade company to export to Taiwan's own company. At that time in his rental housing nearby, Yang opened a grocery crafts, Luo often go shopping, so familiar with each other. In July 6, 97 years, Yang and Luo to discuss open Arts & Crafts City things, the preparation and the one called "Awang" Taiwanese invested 300000, yang to a store and a car contribution. Luo Yang are considered serious business, have a car, house, shop for cooperation with confidence. Since the mainland banking restrictions on private lots drawing mostly, Luo frequently, in October 28th will be the 300000 yuan of money to Yang Jicun, by Yang issue receipts to the plaintiff. Receipt content "received from Taiwan Luo Mr. and I joint venture crafts shop, Luomou's investment of RMB Sanjie element. In October 28, 1997, guy Yang Tian". In November 5, 1997, the result of speculative foreign exchange by the Municipal Public Security Bureau hit "dens", seized a total of about 2000000 yuan RMB and foreign currency. Shortly after the attack to the Public Security Bureau in a letter to the Public Security Bureau, Yang the seized money is 300000 Luo Jicun's investment funds. Afterwards, Luo Xiangyang asked the investment issues, Yang said: "the money by the public security bureau took away, not into the shop." Luo repeatedly claim 300000 yuan of money, however, Yang let him "to the public security bureau can have a try to return 300000". Luo Yang in sympathy, but recently found Yang in the original agreement cooperation store already by Yang opened a crafts store, is very angry, bring a civil lawsuit to request the court to order the defendant Yang, the return of investment fund of RMB 300000 yuan and interest. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff includes: (1) the defendant the receipt; (2) Yang in 1997 July to buy a store house purchase invoices; (3) Yang in 1998 August set up a "boutique city" of individual industrial and commercial households private enterprise archival material.
    The defendant's statement "facts" and prove their claims:
    The morning of November 5, 1997, the plaintiff to the defendant in the home, will be a number of dollars and NT dollars (about 150000 yuan) to the defendant, to exchange into rmb. Both sides about 3 pm the day to Yang Jiazhong for the plaintiff. But at 2 pm, City Public Security Bureau officers suddenly rushed into the house, collected $5000, $30000, yen 50000 yuan, 1200000 yuan and other property from the home, including Luo to Yang and NT $. The public security organs in the detention of yang. Subsequently, the public security organs returned goods and all kinds of currency, the foreign currency cash forfeiture. In order to public security authorities confiscated money back, Yang Geiluo wrote a receipt that was mentioned above, to the public security organs representations. However, three people cooperation opened handicraft shop fact does not exist, and put forward the leaves (i.e., Luo said "Awang") to appear as a witness, leaves to appear as a witness said, he and Luo had never met, never to run three party a crafts store. Also that, when Yang in order from the public security organ to get some money back, had to write 250000 yuan receipt to him, let him for money to the public security organs, but he didn't accept. Luo said he and Yang except litigation the investment of 300000 yuan money, no other economic exchanges, but Yang exhibits a Luo headed passbook, to prove with him in 97 years in November 5th after the incident, still have to exchange foreign currency for transactions purposes, and are shown in court. The passbook is supporting the dragon a Luo hold, use. The passbook account since December 11, 1997 to May 9, 1998, a total of 430000 yuan on deposit in the account, in the debit account on a total of 420000 yuan of expenditures. The amount of added Technology Wang boutique city funds Yang in 1998 opened in July is only l million yuan, the scale is not big, there is no correlation between the sources of funds and in this case the subject, no correlation between the evidence of the two. The above facts, the evidence that: (1) the testimony of witness leaves; (2) Yang Luo book issued by a; (3) add prosperous craft boutique City Industrial and commercial registration capital amount; (4) the public security organs or single.
    The plaintiff and the defendant claimed facts, two levels of courts to hear, but a judgment of the opposite is true: the trial court held that the plaintiff to submit receipts can be used as the basis for a final decision, the plaintiff; the court of second instance ruled that the receipt is not the true meaning of Yang Si said, the plaintiff's claim could not be established. Results the plaintiff's claim was rejected, because both the successful and win against. Judgment can be obtained between the interests and judgment has not benefit difference obviously: win can take or avoid the principal and interest of 30 yuan, two litigation costs shall be borne by the losing party.
    The court of First Instance judgement of the receipt as the basis that the facts. Think crafts store opened or not, does not affect the receipt that Yang received 300000 yuan in.
    But the defendant's appeal. In the appellate procedure, Yang further emphasizes the speculative foreign exchange between the appellant and appellee facts, the appellant receipt should be the petitioner wrote, the purpose is to let the appellee holding this receipt to recover some of the money to public security organs confiscated. But, as the appellee again emphasized the partner shop statement of facts. Advocate bilateral investment crafts shop although no written agreement, but true. Through field investigation, trial of second instance court overturned a receipt to prove the effectiveness of, the reasons are as follows: (1) the key witness leaf court denied three investment crafts store matters, so that with Yang, leaves to invest in cooperation craft shops, the lack of sufficient evidence to confirm that. (2), and Yang 300000 yuan in addition to litigation, no other economic exchanges, while Yang Luo deposit issued by the bank, he argued that carry money is not assured, in the bank is not convenient, will be hosting the appellant is money. Between the before and after Luo Yang and economic relationship is not a court statement, the conflicting statements, to counter intuitive. (3) the amount of any technology Wang boutique city funds Yang in 1998 opened in July is only l million yuan, the scale is not big, its sources of funds and the litigation object relationship, no evidence, also cannot be identified. (4) the court held that, yang to issue a receipt to the appellee Luo, the receipt itself is real, convincing form, but the parties the receipt is different from the paper, does not have the bills without cause, but also consider the basic reasons for its existence. Not run handicraft shop between the parties of the receipt of the fact, the lack of the basis for the existence of achievement, not from the true meaning of the appellant said. Therefore, the receipt does not have proof, essentially inadmissible, Luo claims litigation funds investment funds for lack of evidence, the court shall not support. Yang advocated the receipt is issued to the public security organs to recover confiscated money, because of the public security organ of the punishment decision, Yang's application and witness testimony confirmed leaves, the grounds for appeal are not co investment crafts shop between the proposed and Luo's support. Therefore, the ruling that the facts are not clear, the applicable law is wrong. The decision as follows: revocation of the civil judgment of the first instance dismissed claims; luo.
    In comparison, the judgment of the first instance is easy to understand: the effectiveness value it more evidence. And, the receipt is Yang wrote, recognition that force Yang written receipt, Yang not regret, this is consistent with the formal rationality of law. However, the facts, a judgment is talk ambiguously. The court of second instance judgment, but we have cast doubt on the facts of the case: (1) dated receipt, whether it is real, or down to sign? Yang said in court, speculative foreign exchange have been punished, yang to make Luo to the public security organ with written, the date is the backdating of. He said have intention to invest crafts shop, receipt date is true. The evidence is: in shortly after the incident to the Public Security Bureau in a letter to the Public Security Bureau, Yang the seized money is 300000, registered investment funds. It do not know Yang in order to avoid the money was all found no and metasomatism and written in the post, or the real description of events. How the truth, there was no conclusive evidence. (2) leaf testified that don't know Luo, doesn't make sense. Leaf if don't know Luo, will not be in the prosecution said he and the "Awang", Yang prepared together shop. Yang run "Tim Wang" craft boutique City, taking the word Yang Heye's name in the leaves, if not dormant partner, is difficult to explain. Small scale investment of Taiwanese are in this way, the acquaintance and cooperation, the dormant investment style is very popular in Taiwan. In fact, he called the and Yang is "investment" is also in this way. So, Yang Heye has put aside the Luo cooperation. Luo in the proceedings are not aware of the leaf and Yang became the interests of the community, so three people to the court including leaf, common preparation handicraft shop. Leaf for yang to court witness, the witness statement completely in favor of Yang, can only prove the relationship between leaf and Yang close. This affects the effectiveness of leaf testimony. (3) Luo dares to the court said it with Yang except the disputes in the transaction, no transaction, is that Yang not submitted to the court the important evidence that Luo headed passbook. In Luo view, this can only lead to greater administrative forfeiture or penalty. And the suspect, the general foreign exchange speculation, how will the book in the other hand. So, Yang Zhengming, and engaged in the purchase and sale of foreign exchange for lack of evidence. (4) in early July 97 years, Luo Yang and discuss the shop early, Yang actively will buy a store house purchase invoices submitted to Yang, from the side to prove the Yang Heluo have the possibility of cooperation set up shop. (5) Yang in the appeal, detailed description of the write the receipt after, show this receipt is Luo to his collection he have no alternative against one's will write. However, leaf testified that Yang Ceng offered to write a receipt for him, let him go to the public security organ for money, but he has not promised. This shows that at the time of receipt and write yang to the leaf of Luo write receipt attitude contradictory. This puzzling. At the same time, since the leaf, Luo Yang not to jointly plan process to open shop, why will offer to write a receipt to the leaf, which is doubtful.
    Therefore, the facts of the case how, still need to be further. But to be sure, Yang Biro more familiar with the local social environment and local knowledge, but also more convenient to use this knowledge. Dare not say the truth of the case is grasped by Yang Cehuai and. But, at least, both parties to the court were hiding something or deliberately disclose false information. Maybe, Luo, Yang Heye three people had plotted to or been underground transactions. Luo will amount to RMB $150000 and NT as capital, arguably Yang never have written 300000. Luo to Yang 150000 underground cost, then write 300000 and to cover the crafts shop, 300000 yuan contains illegal trading income. Yemou denies knowing Luo, is not only to testify on Yang, also from all stakeholders. So, in the first and second instance trial of fact and law are the circumstances, through a procedure, for the fact that the bifurcation points the more concentrated, the court found that cases of real possibility cues are also on the increase. But, really to find the truth of the case, it needs many conditions. The final decision of the Court seems to make the case back to the starting point. And the starting point is different, Luomou paid two court costs, attorney fees, Yang is paid two attorney's fee. Because Luomou expectation interests completely in vain, and now he is trying to apply for a retrial, but still could not hope that he said had planned a underground facts -- if they ever had one, because it will be key to his non cornered not say privacy.
    In a word, in front of the judge, the evidence is limited. And limited evidence to prove the facts of the case, is not only the only answer.
    Effects of two judicial reasoning in the proof
    The judiciary, in the face of difficult to ascertain the facts, the court still has the obligation to solve the factual and legal dispute between the parties, not refuse referee. So, how to make the decision to be a fair judgment, the judge had much. In fact, such a problem in itself contains the tendency of subjective value judgment. So, put aside the question the purpose and background of this case, judge the second instance decision which is more reasonable or appropriateness, often in vain. But the method of proving the rationality of the discussion, will be of great significance.
    Can say, the second instance court judge assume the fact the judge's responsibility. The second trial judge or in a certain extent, took the risk of losing who bear the problem. Luoken will give Yang a sum of money, regardless of is 300000 or 150000. Thus, the dispute in this case was: money was not will bear the losses? If Yang Heluo does for illegally trading in foreign exchange behavior captured by the public security organs, so to the court to request repayment of Luo Yang, there is no reason. However, the public security organs without penalty Luo Luo's behavior, the public security organs have not been identified as illegal speculation in foreign exchange, evidenced by Luo income receipt is a creditor debtor relationship. So, Yang Qianfang hundreds to find related behavior and the public security organ of the punishment. The first time connection, that November 5, 1997 morning 10 when he came to Yang, US dollar and Renminbi handed himself in the prosecution, agreed to let Luo at 3 in the afternoon to take, but, at 2 in the afternoon was not detected. The second is to write the receipt is associated with illegal behavior. In order to prove this receipt is not addressed to Luo Yang statement, written receipt after the appeal, that is, forced to write, inscribe it according to Luo will backdating time. This is the method of Yang defense. Finally, to prove he has been foreign exchange deposit, and discuss open crafts store is Luo's fiction. Luo behavior once belonging to illegal foreign exchange transactions, other litigation request collapse of itself. The method is that the Luo attack receipt is true, the money will be deposited in the Yang motivation is legitimate, once you reach this objective, also won the lawsuit.
    However, the courts have ignored a crucial law premise: in our country, citizen participation in illegal foreign exchange transactions, must according to the criminal judgment or administrative penalties and other means to identify, civil litigation is the dispute settlement obligations of civil rights, if it is found that the relevant provisions of Luo's violation of the criminal law or administrative law to criminal judicial organ, it shall transfer the case to the competent organ or the relevant administrative. The civil courts cannot according to party provide evidence "that" the other party constitutes illegal speculation in foreign exchange behavior. But in this case, the object of public security organs punishment is Yang personal behavior, Luo not prosecuted. In the logical premise of this, Yang presented evidence that the witness testimony, issued by the leaf Yang Luo passbook a, Tim Wang craft boutique City Industrial and commercial registration capital amount, the public security organ of the confiscation of single and this dispute facts have no relevance.
    Visible, simple method of the court of first instance, and not to reveal the reason of the judgment, so can't convince people. The proof of the logic is, the plaintiff exhibits the receipt, fulfill the burden of proof, the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant should be. [5] and the defendant while providing evidence, but not enough to prove this receipt is in violation of their true meaning under the premise of writing. And, even with the defendant's plea, Yang Geiluo issued a receipt, in order to avoid illegal foreign exchange transactions between the sanctions, get back by the public security organs of the seized money. In the implementation of this law, both sides know that receipt of the content and the meaning of. Especially Yang proposed witness Yemou confirmed, in order from the public security organ to get some money back, Yang Yeceng wrote 250000 yuan receipt to him, let him for money to the public security organs, but he didn't accept. So, even though Yang wrote a receipt is in the public security organs to investigate the written after the true meaning, Yang wrote this receipt is this: the first is that the public security organs sure it; after the failed to play its due effect, Luo to resort to the court, hope that the court would it. This shows that the court in that Yang's excuse, also can only be identified: Yang proposed "evidence" can only prove that he himself had written this receipt, don't want it to be used as the fact that the evidence against him. Now the prosecution behavior is contrary to the true meaning of express or implied that the defendant to write this piece of receipt. The first instance court confirmed receipt of legal significance, and ignored the idea of the defendant, but to meet the plaintiffs request.
    The court of second instance is examined in the Luo Yang passbook stated transactions, Tim Wang craft boutique city status, Ye Wang's testimony to prove that the plaintiff's statement has many can not be established, the judgment Yang appeal was established. In comparison, logical error trial court made more than a trial: Luo stay Yang at the specified transaction certificates or repetitive exchange behavior between young and Luo, as proof of receipt on the partnership open crafts fact is not true; leaf Wang Luo statement testimony by leaf, Luo Yang, three had prepared starting a crafts store is the fact that the It is sheer fiction.; status quo Tien Wang craft boutique city that is the past, not to write a receipt leaves Wang can be made. The identification of forensic evidence, is that Luo behavior should be the public security organs and behavior, therefore, is a public security organ shall include Luo confiscated money. Luo to Yang's value of 150000 or 300000 RMB and NT $, shall be confiscated of nature. The receipt is in order to escape the legal sanction legal name mentioned, therefore, does not represent yang to Luo for payment, Luo this receipt filed a lawsuit against the Yang's "true meaning". However, the court of second instance hand that receipt itself is true, there is evidence of form; on the other hand, it does not have a specified entity rights and obligations of content -- the bill literary comparison, that the receipt is not a note, it is necessary to consider the existing basic reasons -- this is very puzzling. Because the receipt itself exists to prove the basic facts, and this bill does not have because of apple and orange. Trial of second instance court's reasoning was not based on the legal logic, is not to attempt an ineffective solution.
    So, the judge's judicial experience. The latent see, the judiciary according to law by judicial adjudicative facts, only is the legal fact. Parties to a civil action to seek for their own judgment, have the obligation to provide evidence of their allegation. The fact that the debate around the differences, but also for the proof of their subjective fact favorable; the judge to make a convincing judgment, to use judicial logic that the facts of the case. So the applicable law in the case of the process, is the judge according to process evidence for ascertaining the facts, is that the parties involved in proceedings of persuasion. From the results, the judge may result in objective reality and the case is consistent, may deviate from the objective reality.
    Rationality of the three pursuit of "legal truth"
    The understanding of the objective world and the operational language by subjective thinking, is the language of the law; litigation evidence is the basis of thinking in litigation. We use the evidence judgment facts of the case evidence, dwelling on the legal thinking. So, the evidence judgment process, is according to the law to construct the past fact subjective mental process. Although this process, first of all is the ordinary people of the cognitive process of things past, to follow the people according to the evidence of existing and existing experience, search the general methods of thinking elements integrated material necessary; but more importantly it has its own unique demand of proof and proof method.
    The facts of the case is based on human activity as the center of the social fact, has a complete and irreversible, which makes the identification method of case facts and the scientific experiment repeatability to discover the laws of nature are different, and understanding of historical events and people have in common certain, that is, according to the limited evidence from now in retrospect, restored the past.
    Here is an example of a history of controversy, to compare method to prove the historical facts and legal case. Some people think that "not to China Marco Polo, the main reason is" Marco Polo travel diary "no mention of the Great Wall Chinese; if he had been to the China, should not have the negligence. Against this view and tries to prove that the "Marco Polo visited Chinese people how to support his argument? He can't take back to 900 years ago, the Yuan Dynasty to see, can only be proved by providing history "evidence", namely with the known facts to infer the argument error. The evidence is: prove that the Yuan Dynasty is a "only know the Thai Wangong radio" heroic age. The Yuan Dynasty rulers explore and expand, don't pay attention to defense, the Great Wall has no meaning in the people's eyes; because of the Tang Dynasty is the heyday of Chinese civilization, not repair the the Great Wall, the defense far away in the south of the Great Wall, Qin, Han of the the Great Wall in the Yuan Dynasty collapsed or submerged in the desert, we see today are the ruins of the Great Wall built in Ming dynasty. In the Yuan Dynasty before Tang Hesong, had not repaired the Great Wall. Therefore, the people can not see the the Great Wall. In the Yuan Dynasty poet, "Qin Han Guan Moon," the feeling is the ancient sound...... And so on. In this paper to demonstrate the "Marco Polo visited Chinese is far from enough, but it can be used to refute the other's point of view, that is: not because he" Polo trip no mention of the Great Wall, denies the Marco Polo visited "China historical facts. If you agree with this view, he was "persuaded": Although there is no direct evidence that Marco Polo visited Chinese ", but at least on whether to the Great Wall a such details, can not be denied that he had been to China. According to the general knowledge of the history, "mark" the trip "mark" to Chinese Baltic voyage. Just can't deny mark "Polo visited China, cannot think" Marco Polo "travels" mark "the hearsay of fiction.
    Demonstrate the characteristics and historical events that deal with evidence of the fact that the judicial process is very similar: two are already in the past; and in one time, a space can only have a certain situation, not in a state of uncertainty. This fact actually how, only one correct answer. However, because of the existence of the presence of the past events and the distance between the past now, the truth in subjective cognition cannot be reproduced, so, the distance between the subject and the understanding of the object of cognition, across the middle of the river, the flow of time. While judges in technology or cognitive ability and other aspects of the experience is very important to know the facts of the case. Because the understanding and understanding history of the past, fundamentally speaking, is the life experience of people. Movement is far from philosophers in the system. We explain in history or the past facts felt between the past and the present distance, not only is a time and space distance. It is more important to a by the experience of life caused by the different spiritual distance. Compared with the understanding of the laws of natural science, we can in a scientific laboratory, using an effective method to create a copy of the object in the past, but "experience is the presence in the specific historical in the state, from time to time in the update, not only yesterday and today have no experience with the experience of others and their own, the experience is different, even the same person's experience, is all the time not repeated: today cannot repeat yesterday's experience, modern could not repeat the history experience, life and forever to open new experience. No one can completely and accurately repeat the experience of others, this is not only a means of in time and space and physically impossible to do, even in the spiritual activities, such as imagination, understanding, experience, could not complete repeat the experience of others." [6]
    Because the experience can not repeat the past, so, the reader of history according to the available evidence, to rebuild their past experience. Pray for understanding historical fact to absolute objective truth degree becomes impossible. On the judge's point of view, face the same historical events and facts to be proved the dispute question, two are required to "persuade" others, so that others believe in yourself that is indeed the past happened. Confirmation of a historical event exist if not, how the author details, need to according to the archaeology, history of evidence to convince others; and be proved the existence of such as not, the parties need to convince the court. Because the fact is the process of a preponderance of evidence of one of the parties to convince. In civil proceedings, who advocates, who bears the burden of proof. The parties for their own facts for their claims, bear the responsibility of the evidence. Because of the interest between parties agreement, the judge "the facts of the case to find out", must carry on the mutual exclusion of evidence is non judgmental, a party with evidence of benefit to the fact that the probability is high, the judge shall permit according to the adoption of the party. So, the judge process understanding past facts, is in the common participation of the parties and the judge, process the maximum reproduction has already happened. In the past the parties need to provide evidence, and be fully explain the contradiction, the judge in the court can best reconstruct the past facts. The referee can achieve a fair and reasonable, and the procedure law judge independent principle, principle of direct trial and the principle purpose of this.
    The law only consider the facts and cases related factors, and to complete in the procedural requirements within the time limit. So, in comparison, the historical problem is more flexible, it can make sense, political, economic, cultural and social environment and other factors are taken into account. The understanding of the objective facts of the case to be limited by many factors: (1) the fact that happened after the leave can be proved by the amount of material; (2) the level of science and technology; (3) the defences of the parties; (4) the witness's credibility and social image; (5) whether the law mandatory provisions master is unfavorable to one of the parties shall produce evidence evidence; (6) the judge of fact finding process is affected by all kinds of illegal interference factors; (7) understanding of the public can accept a method or way of evaluation; (8) were ruled out the use of evidence of the scope and so on. The above factors, influence the understanding of the truth of cases.
    Because there are many factors affecting the truth of case finding, must discover the truth of a complicated case may be unrealistic. Give up the effort, stability for the rationality, validity and program according to the laws of logic, the legal truth as the standard of proof, is the most appropriate target justice pursuit. Here should emphasize, this is not to agnosticism, admit lawsuit objective truth found chance and subjective factual necessity, has nothing to do with the philosophy of agnosticism. The materialist view, human cognitive ability to the material world can continue to improve, gradually to the understanding of the essence of things. However, know the facts of the case and the philosophical concepts, there are many different: first, understanding the philosophy is the essence of existing things and to understand the development of sports law, and know the facts of the case need to reproduce the past facts in mind, don't need to abstract rules of the occurrence of movement, although the case the moving rule is helpful to know the facts of the case. Second, know the facts of the case of activities is not the whole human activities, but by the judge's personal representative for the court to make findings. Third, understanding the facts of the case scope of activities is limited to the proceedings, time is limited to the case of time range. While the general understanding of the law of the material world can for thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years or even longer, but the parties to resolve disputes activity should be addressed in the dispute parties expected reasonable period of time, there may be other proceedings proceedings and in fact differences. [7] in the process of the lawsuit, the judge to judge, to find the truth of the case, the judge can "experience" past the facts of the case. Therefore, the evidence standard of judgment and the judgment method is subjective. But at the same time, the process of judging evidence shall be evidence rules, rules of evidence itself should prevent subjective from objective facts, and to ensure that the judge can correctly distinguish the litigation "evidence" is the final "evidence".