判例的類比要素：情景、中項與等值

指導性案例的指導性得到了一定程度的認可，但是存在著曲高和寡的現象。眾多因素中，對判例獨立性價值的無視無疑是深層次原因。這涉及到法官自由裁量權的定位，更涉及到對法律基本原則和解釋方法的綜合運用。遵循判例的優勢在於滿足了法律語言的情景化特點。離開了情景，法律商談作為一種特殊商談方式無法實現，適用的漏洞無法根本修復。類比不是奢侈品，而是普遍存在的實踐理性。等值的判斷無法通過類型化語言的方式簡單給出答案，通過類比，延伸出案件的同質性特徵，實際上產生的是一個體系化的分支。類型化的解釋更多體現了政策的特徵，無法證明結論的正當性，原則規範也難以得到體現。指導性案例的優勢在於編纂特徵，從而一定程度避免了裁判理由與隨附意見的混淆，裁判的約束力和說服性也相對明確。其標準首先體現為裁判要點（要旨），裁判要點（要旨）是類比中項的關鍵，也是最終的結論。不僅裁判要點（要旨）的內容需要規範化，在確定中項內容時也需要考慮相關的裁判理由。遵循先例必然存在“可能的類比、必然的類比、發揮具體功能的類比”，這都在加大類比的風險，所以，需要時刻牢記的是：“一個與‘普遍規則和原則’衝突的先例不具有約束力。”

The guiding effect of guiding cases has been recognized to some extent, but it is still too high to be appreciated. Among the many causes, the ignorance of the independent value of precedents is undoubtedly the most important. This involves the judge s discretion, but also the comprehensive application of basic legal principles and interpretation methods. The advantage of following precedents is that it meets the situational characteristics of legal language. Without the situation, legal negotiation cannot be realized as a special way of negotiation, and the loopholes in application cannot be completely filled. Analogy is not a luxury, but common practical rationality. The judgment of equivalence cannot simply obtain the answer by means of typed language. It extends the homogeneity of cases by analogy, which in fact generates a systematic branch. The typed interpretation more reflects the characteristics of the policy, it cannot prove the legitimacy of the conclusion, and it is difficult to reflect the principles and norms. The advantage of guiding cases lies in the codification feature, which avoids the confusion between the judgment s reasons and the accompanying opinions to some extent, and the judgment s binding force and persuasiveness are relatively clear. The standard firstly lies in the main points of the judgment, which are the key to the analogical median and the conclusion. Not only the content of the main points of the judgments needs to be standardized, but the relevant judgment reasons need to be considered when determining the content of the median. Following the precedents, there must be ''possible analogy, inevitable analogy and analogy with specific functions'', all of which increase the risk of analogy. It is necessary to keep in mind that ''aprecedent that conflicts with universal rules and principles is not binding. ''