Research On The Presidential Effect Of Criminal Judgment In Civil Lawsuit

The validity of criminal judgment in civil litigation is typical in criminal prior trial in the cross-criminal case.Our country’s legislation does not clearly stipulate the validity of the criminal judgment and its application.The academic circle also does not form a unified understanding.The judicial practice in the judicial practice is also different,which makes the discretion of the judge unavoidable in the trial practice,which is unfavorable to the procedure.The judge ruled the establishment of authority and establishment of fair procedure.Therefore,it is of great significance both in theory and in practice to deeply study the validity of criminal judgment and its application.The existing law has few provisions on the validity of the criminal judgment,so there is less analysis on the definition and characteristics of its definite validity.The effect of the preliminary judgment of a criminal judgment mainly refers to the position of the "fact" of the criminal judgment in the associated post-complaint,whether the post-judge directly adopts the specific "fact" or refuses to invoke it?What is the theoretical ownership of this effect?Based on the existing theoretical foundation,it is reasonable to attribute the essence of its validity to the active role of the res judicata in procedural aspects under the basic content of judgment.In addition,in practice,the effectiveness of predictability should be distinguished from the factual effectiveness of judicial cognition.The cross between the two is that the judge adopts the direct adoption of a particular "fact" in the trial.However,in fact,the fact The distinction between effectiveness and superiority is obvious and can not be confused.Criminal lawsuits may be the object of criminal lawsuits,such as the crime of one person,or the civil lawsuit,that is,one act may be both a criminal act regulated by criminal law and a civil law act Of infringement,which is a case of cross-criminal cases,and the criminal trial process first.However,the types of criminal and civil cases that cross each other are not necessarily all based on the procedural choice of"punishing prisoners and punishing civilians".The theoretical basis of the procedural choice of "prior punishment and afterministration" lies in the fact that "the priority of public rights" is already incompatible with the existing concept of human rights protection in criminal procedure law.Therefore,there are many critics both in theory and in practice,and some even advocate the abolition of this procedure.The pre-judgment effect of criminal judgments in civil lawsuit is based on the premise that the "first sentence" comes into effect before the criminal-civil case cross-over.Therefore,it is necessary to clarify the value orientation existing in the procedure of"prior punishment and aftermining".The method of handling the issue of the effect of the criminal judgment’s predicting effect on the procedure of civil lawsuits is very different from that of the civil law system.In the Anglo-American legal system,the "controversial prohibition of antitheses" is adjusted.However,due to its strict restrictions,such as the"interactivity principle" must be abided by in the early stage and the parties must be absolutely the same.However,based on the differences between criminal procedure and civil procedure,Difficult to meet the conditions so that the criminal judgments to determine the facts in the subsequent citation rate of civil litigation lower.The representative representatives of the Anglo-American legal system,both the United Kingdom and the United States,started with the rules of evidence,giving the evidentiary effect in the latter case of the foreclosure fact.This is a way of expanding the verdict of the criminal judgment,though it is practically adopted With a lot of uncertainty.The civil law system has the complete rules of res judicata.However,there is an essential difference between the res judicata and the validity of the judgment.Therefore,the res judicata theory can not completely solve the problem of the presumptive validity of criminal judgments.Therefore,France has created a special rule to make it play its role.Germany and Japan,which are continental legal systems,did not take such measures.Instead,they regarded the conclusion of the effective judgment made by the courts as the effectiveness of the public documents in the evidence system and have a high degree of proof.The effectiveness of legislative and judicial interpretation of our country in judgments of criminal judgments on civil litigation is mainly reflected in the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as"Judicial Interpretations of Civil Procedure Law")Article 93 provides that,in summary,the interpretation incorporates it into the system of evidence,and the predetermined facts are one of the facts of the warrantlessness.The subjective and objective scope of the predictive effect is very vague.In particular,the interests of the outsiders in the civil lawsuits that are not involved in criminal proceedings are not protected.Therefore,with regard to the status quo of this legislation and the practice in practice,the issue of the validity of criminal judgments should be improved on the basis of clarifying the essence of its effectiveness.Specifically,it should proceed from the aspects of the main effects,the objective scope and the time scope.Of course,there is no absolute rule to follow and still allow for exceptions that make the effectiveness more workable.