综上，对于案件事实的考察既有利于法官还原事实真相，排除事实疑难，也有利于实现个案正义。越是无限接近事实真相，越有利于法官面对客观事实作出正确的事实判断，进而作出最为合理的价值判断。事实判断与价值判断本就是作出判决所必备的要素，缺一不可。抛开事实疑难的可能性，空谈适用原则和规则，本身具有很大的风险。必须首先排除事实疑难，否则在不确定的事实基础上进行价值判断难以避免错案的不断产生。
注释
①［英］尼尔·麦考密克：《法律推理与法律理论》，姜峰译，北京出版社，2005年，第125页。
②孙海波：《“疑难案件的成因及裁判进路研究”文献综述》，北大法律信息网，http://article.chinalawinfo.com/ArticleHtml/Article_62555.shtml。
③齐晓凡：《司法鉴定中的不确定性鉴定结论研究——以笔记鉴定为考察视角》，《湖南公安高等专科学校学报》，2006年，第18卷第5期，第55页。
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
责 编∕杨昀贇
