摘要： 法律要件分类说是民事诉讼中证明责任分配的主流学说，关于该说对刑事证明责任分配适用的可能性，学界一致持基本否定的态度。这种否定态度是因为对证明责任基本概念存在诸多误解造成的。刑事和民事证明责任分配的基本方案，均应建立在对各法律要件进行分类基础之上，只不过各自对法律要件进行分类的具体方法存在重大差别。民事诉讼中以罗森贝克规范说的分类方法为典型代表，而刑事诉讼中法律要件分类的结果则体现为犯罪构成体系。应当从法律要件分类的视角，重新审视我国犯罪构成体系重构问题，从而使刑事证明责任的分配有章可循。

关键词: 法律要件分类说, 证明责任, 职权调查, 犯罪构成

Abstract: The classification of elements to law is currently the mainstream in civil procedural law regarding the burdenof proof. The possibility of its applicability to the same issue in the criminal procedural law, however, was uni-formly refuted by all the academics. This article argues that this negative attitude largely comes out of misunder-standings about the basic conception of burden of proof. All forms of distributive arrangement of criminal as wellas civil responsibilities should rest on the basis of classification of every legal element. What makes the differenceis the specific method adopted during the process of classification. In civil procedural law, the normative theory ofRosinbeck is the sweeping classification method, while in the area of criminal procedural law, the result of theclassification manifests itself as the crime constitution. Therefore, it'd be better to take advantage of the perspec-tives on classification of elements to law, and reexamine the restructuring issue of Chinese crime constitution,thus form a proper course that can orderly channel the distribution of the burden of proof in the area of criminallaw.

Key words: The Classification of Elements to Law, The Burden of Proof, Functional Investigation, Crime Constitution