Civil Justice In The Confirmation Of Fact From Peng Yu Case

The main task of the administration of justice is confirming the facts and applying the law. Confirmation of the facts is the basis and condition of applicable law,which is important to the administration of justice.However, the cases in judicial practice is confusing, the two parties are uncompromising, and the evidence is insufficient. So the confirmation of the facts runs into serious trouble. In this case,whether the court may refuse to referee? If not, what should the decision be made?There are three methods to confirm the facts. First, direct determination of facts is based on the evidence. Second, using experience rule to presume the facts. Third,using the burden of proof. If the evidence is sufficient, it can be used to confirm the facts directly, without argument. So this thesis will discuss the second and third method.At present, the judge often use the burden of proof system in judicial practice of China, which is more safety. Using the burden of proof, one party, having the burden of proof, will bear adverse consequences. And because the presumption of fact is subjective and uncertain, so judges rarely take the initiative to use the experience rule to presume the facts, or that many of the judges deliberately avoid the application of the presumption. The experience rule is varied and judges will chose different experience rule because of the personal experience and knowledge. Sometimes the judges may chose wrong experience rule,which results in presuming incorrectly.Therefore, many judges in order to avoid the risk of wrongful convictions, put eyes on higher safety factor of the burden of proof system. This method conforms to the laws, will not be criticized by society and the judge will not be investigated for responsibility. Thus, judges will abuse the system of burden of proof. In this way,judges won’t think too much during trail, without considering the evidence of the case. So it will be far from the truth. Presumption of fact is based on experience rule,and the experience rule comes from social life experience. The experience rule has high degree of probability, so the presumption fact based on it is approach to truth.The conviction will be acceptable by people. However, if judges use wrongexperience rule or have a improper understanding, they will get wrong conclusion.Therefore, using experience rule to presume the fact, or using burden of proof, the conviction will be in line with justice.In Peng Yu Case, the judge used the experience rule initiatively. While the conviction don’t confirm to the concept of justice of the public. The author thinks that the experience rule used by judge in this case is wrong, which results in the criticism of the public. On the other hand, the burden of proof is used in a wrong way. The judge changed the burden of proof of two parties. He didn’t prove his viewpoint by responsibility of proof or standard of proof.The author analyses how the experience rule and burden of proof is used in confirming the fact by Peng YU Case. The thesis is consist of four parts. The first part is about the basic situation of Peng Yu Case and the relative question. The second part is about the using of experience rule in presumption of fact. The third part is about the burden of proof. The forth part is enlightenment in Peng Yu Case to the conformation of fact, that is to say, when confirming the fact, the conclusion not only have to conform to legal values, but also have to achieve good social effects. In this way,it will achieve a unified legal effect.