论文部分内容阅读
关于证明责任的性质及构成方面,人们或许有许多不同的观点,但作为证明责任本身,不管人们怎样看待它,它都会客观地起作用,案件事实真伪不明所产生的不利后果总是客观存在的。在证明责任理论中比认识证明责任更重要或更具有实际意义的是证明责任的分配。证明责任作为裁判规范指示法官在案件事实真伪不明时如何作出裁判,证明责任(客观证明责任)规范的实质是在案件事实不明的场合,谁最终应当承担不利后果。证明责任
There may be many different opinions about the nature and constitution of the burden of proof, but as the burden of proof itself, no matter how people think of it, it will work objectively. The negative consequences of the factual truth of the case are always objective of. The burden of proof is more important or more practical than the burden of proof in the theory of burden of proof. The burden of proof as a criterion of adjudication instructs the judge to make a judgment in the event that the truth of the case is unknown, and the essence of the criterion of responsibility (objective proof of responsibility) is that in the event that the facts of the case are not clear, who should ultimately bear the adverse consequences? Proof of responsibility