216 Evidence Science Vol.20 No.2 2012 * ; ; D915.13 A 1674-1226(2011)02-0216-16 Analysis of Han Han Ghost Gate Event from the Perspective of Evidence Law. Chen Wei School of Law Beihang University 10019. Abstract Han Han ghost gate event has become a public event. Han Han claimed he would sue Fang Zouzi for the infringement of his reputation. If the claim is accepted by the court the court will judge whether the Fang Zouzi s accusation is true or not. The burden of proof in the case can be allocated by the court. Fang proves his accusation with indirect evidence by adopting an experience rule by which each individual probably has his (her) own conclusions; therefore Fang s reasoning is very controversial. Although the court has right of free discretion to judge the authenticity of the event considering the pressure of public opinion the court might very probably concludes the authenticity is unclear due to the insufficient evidences by applying the rule of proof burden and avoiding the fact-finding. Even though Fang will not be subject to the infringement of Han s reputation. And the court can realize the balance between free speech and right to reputation by identifying the fault elements. Through this case the public s awareness of the forensic science has been greatly increased although there are some irrational matters existing. Key Words Presumption of fact Unclear authenticity Fault Right to reputation *
2012 ( 2 ) 217 2012 1 ( )? 2012 2 3 2012 2 6 4 1999 2012 2 10 2012 2 13 2012 2 10 2012 4 5 ( )?????? ( ) 2 1 :http://book.163.com/special/pkhanhan/ :2012 4 16 2
218 Evidence Science Vol.20 No.2 2012 3 1993 ( ) :?? : : ; 4 5 80 ( ) ( ) ( ) 3 2003 2 4 : 1986 3 5 : 2003 4
2012 ( 2 ) 219 : 6 7 8 2010? ( ) 6 (2004) ( ) 13 7 (2006) 7361 8 (2007) 2715
220 Evidence Science Vol.20 No.2 2012 : ; ; 9 : ; : 5 000 : 5 000 ; ( ) 10 11 12 13 ( ) 9 [ ] : 2003 115 10 [ ] : 2004 395 11 : 1999 124 12 : 1995 250 13
2012 ( 2 ) 221 14 28 : 15 5 2 : 1 16 17 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) : 1. ( ) ( ) 2. ( ) ( ) 3. (2006 ) 2000 4. : ; 14 : 2003 119 15 2004 48 16 146 17 : : http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_474068790102dz2c.html :2012 4 16
222 Evidence Science Vol.20 No.2 2012 ; 17 ; 5. 6. 2012 4 1 18? : 19? 20 73 : 18 : http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_474068790102dzdq.html :2012 4 16 19 12 301 20 [ ] : : ( 4 ) 2003 78
2012 ( 2 ) 223?? 21 22 : ; 20 80 21 : 2007 5 22 : 2003 4
224 Evidence Science Vol.20 No.2 2012 23 24 ; 25 ; ; ; 26 :(1) ;(2) :(1) ;(2) ;(3) 27?? 23 : 2003 11 24 : 2003 384 25 [ ] : 2000 130 26 : 1998 2 27 : 2002 191~192
2012 ( 2 ) 225 : ; ; 28 29 ( ) 30 31 28? 29 : : 2010 12 30 : 2009 24 31 : 2008 2
226 Evidence Science Vol.20 No.2 2012 32 33 34 2008 2009 2010 100 35 32 33 : 2012 4 7 34 : 2010 3 35 http://www.m4.cn/mag/hqcj/1157561. shtml
2012 ( 2 ) 227 2011 36? 36 http://survey.news.ifeng.com/result.php?surveyid=15792 :2012 4 16
228 Evidence Science Vol.20 No.2 2012 37?? 38 2002 :(1) (2) (3) 39 ( ) ; ; 40? 41 37 : http://www.m4.cn/space/1150325.shtml :2012 4 16 38 2 20 33 : http://hot.wenweipo.com/2012111/ index.html :2012 4 16 39 (2002) 1776 40 http://blog.163.com/fangzhouzi_vip/blog/static/1097556942012214400564/ :2012 4 16 41 : http://book.163.com/12/0225/22/7r529en300924jjl.html :2012 4 16
2012 ( 2 ) New York Time Co.v.Sullian 42 (falsity) (reckless) 43 44 7 : ( ) ; 229 45 42 : 2004 110~118 43 See Curtis Publishing Co. V. Butts 388 U. S: 130(1967); Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. 418 LI. S. 323 (1974). 44 : 2000 65 153 45 : http://gongyi.ifeng.com/news/detail_2012_03/09/13080961_0.shtml :2012 4 16
230 Evidence Science Vol.20 No.2 2012 46 12 ( ) 47 ; ( ) 48 49 46 : 2011 08 27 ; : 2011 27 47 : http://www.aisixiang.com/data/detail.php?id=50976 :2012 4 16 48 : http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_56ffcbdb01010nnx.html :2012 4 16 49 : http://book.163.com/12/0229/00/7rd0pjfl00924jjs_all.html#p4 :2012 4 16
2012 ( 2 ) 231 ; ;? ( :2012-04-03; :2012-04-17) ( : )