本案例中原被告双方争议的焦点是甲的行为(招待吃饭、打欠条)是职务行为还是个人行为,甲是否要承担还款责任。法庭合议中,审判员基本采信了被告的主张,因被告主体资格不适而驳回起诉。作为该案的人民陪审员,本文作者认为驳回起诉对权利人来说是不公平的,对社会公众而言也是难以理解和接受的,法律不仅要在立法宗旨上态度鲜明地向人们宣示保护什么反对什么,更要重视在立法技术上实现这一宗旨,法院的审理与判决,不仅是法律技术的操作,更是一种法律艺术、法律精神的实践。 In this case, the dispute between the defendants and the defendant focused on whether the act of acting on behalf of Party A (serving dinner, playing IOUs) was a postal act or a personal act and whether A should bear the repayment responsibility. In court deliberations, the judge basically took the defendant’s claim and dismissed the prosecution because of the disqualification of the defendant’s subject. As a people’s assessor in this case, the author of this article believes that dismissal of prosecutions is unfair to the obligees and difficult for the public to understand and accept. The law should not only declare to the public what the protection is What should be opposed and what should be emphasized in the legislation and technology? The trial and judgment by the courts are not only the operation of law and technology, but also the practice of law and art and the law.