论文部分内容阅读
民事诉讼法第185条第1款规定的检察机关提起抗诉的理由之一是原判决、裁定认定事实的主要证据不足;实践中“认定事实的主要证据不足”包括两种情形:一是当事人提供了认定事实的证据,但法官未能分清双方责任,导致裁判错误;二是由于当事人在一、二审中举证不力败诉,而在向检察机关申诉时,出具了新的证据,新证据的出现,使原来的裁判错误。由检察机关抗诉的案件,后者所占的比例相当大。笔者认为,对第二种情形的案件检察机关不应提起抗诉。
One of the reasons why the procuratorial organ initiated the protest according to Article 185 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law is the lack of the main evidence for the original verdict and adjudication of the facts. In practice, “the main evidence of the ascertained facts is insufficient” includes two situations: one is that the parties provide However, the judge failed to distinguish between the two parties’ responsibilities and led to the referee’s mistake. Second, because the parties failed to prove the case successfully in the first and second trials, and when appealing to the procuratorial organs, they issued new evidences and new evidences, So that the original referee mistakes. Cases prosecuted by prosecutors, the latter a considerable proportion. The author believes that the procuratorial organ in the second case should not file a protest.