作者：孙海波
作者介绍：中国政法大学比较法学研究院副教授、法学博士
出版日期：2020年12月9日
内容提要 两个案件既可以在很多方面相似，又可能在很多方面不同，相似的属性可以 将类似案件聚合为一个集群，类案或同案的概念由此形成。除了人们所熟悉的类比推理之 外，即便演绎三段论的适用也暗含着事实属性相似的判断过程。然而，如何从理论上构建案 件相似性的判断标准一直是个未决的难题。类案判断整体上是二阶构造的程式，一阶聚焦 于案件事实的论证，其具体可以展开为三个层次，基于层层梳理事实将案件之间的相关相同 点和相关不同点呈现出来。二阶着眼于实质性的价值权衡，通过诉诸规范目的、法律原则乃 至政策等实质性理由，来综合判断相关相同点是否比不同点更具压倒性的优势，从而证成或 否证同案。此外，相似性判断应尽力避免主观恣意，而成为一种具有相对客观性的理性决断， 在实践运行中须遵循相应的价值论证规则。
关键词 “同案” 相似性判断标准 关键性事实 规范目的 实质权衡
Abstract: Two cases can be similar in some aspects, but also different in other aspects. Similar attributes can aggregate similar cases into a cluster, and the concept of similar cases is then formed. In addition to the familiar analogical reasoning, even the application of deductive syllogism implies the process of judging cases’ similarity. However, how to construct the judgment standard of cases’ similarity, in theory, has been a pending problem. As a whole, the judging of cases’ similarity has a second-order structure. The first-order process focuses on the demonstration of facts of the case, which can be expanded into three levels. Based on combing the facts at different levels, the relevant similarities and differences between cases are presented. The second-order process emphasizes substantive value balance, and resorts to substantive reasons such as normative purposes, legal principles, and even policies to comprehensively judge whether relevant similarities have an overwhelming advantage over relevant differences, and thus prove or disprove the similarity between them. Furthermore, judging of cases’ similarity should avoid subjective arbitrariness as much as possible, and become a kind of rational decision with relative objectivity. The important thing is to follow the corresponding argumentation rules in practice.