綜上，對于案件事實的考察既有利于法官還原事實真相，排除事實疑難，也有利于實現個案正義。越是無限接近事實真相，越有利于法官面對客觀事實作出正確的事實判斷，進而作出最為合理的價值判斷。事實判斷與價值判斷本就是作出判決所必備的要素，缺一不可。拋開事實疑難的可能性，空談適用原則和規則，本身具有很大的風險。必須首先排除事實疑難，否則在不確定的事實基礎上進行價值判斷難以避免錯案的不斷產生。

注釋

①［英］尼爾·麥考密克：《法律推理與法律理論》，姜峰譯，北京出版社，2005年，第125頁。

②孫海波：《“疑難案件的成因及裁判進路研究”文獻綜述》，北大法律信息網，http://article.chinalawinfo.com/ArticleHtml/Article_62555.shtml。

③齊曉凡：《司法鑒定中的不確定性鑒定結論研究——以筆記鑒定為考察視角》，《湖南公安高等專科學校學報》，2006年，第18卷第5期，第55頁。

On the Types and Applicability of Factual Difficulty in Criminal Cases

Zhang Xiaoran

Abstract: Factual difficulty and legal difficulty are the two major areas in the studies of hard cases. Factual judgment is not tantamount to truth, which may inevitably leave a doubtful point unquestioned. Factual difficulty also belongs to the category of theoretical studies of hard cases. Legal factual difficulty is not equal to legal difficulty, it falls within the ambit of factual difficulty like objective facts. The factual difficulty may vary depending on which authority is handling it, including the police department, the procuratorate, or the court. The focus is on ascertaining the objective facts during the criminal investigations, on checking the objective facts while examining legal factual difficulty during the public prosecution process, and on examining legal factual difficulty and factual difficulty retrospectively and examining legal difficulty after excluding factual difficulty during the court trial process.

Keywords: factual difficulty, legal difficulty, objective fact, legal factual difficulty

責 編∕楊昀贇