摘要： 在奉行遵循先例原则的普通法之运行中，区别技术居于核心地位，其基本含义是法官比较先例与待决案件之间是否具有相似性。这对我国的案例指导制度也具有重要的借鉴意义。通过对我国司法实践中引述了指导性案例第24号的裁判文书加以梳理可以发现，法官们在运用区别技术来否定参照指导性案例时，能以案件事实或者法律适用不相似作为论证理由，但这种运用比较粗糙和混乱，甚至存在矛盾之处。即使在那些运用区别技术来肯定参照指导性案例的裁判文书中，也存在着将特定指导性案例扩展到其他类型案件的“跨界”适用，其中包含着不少隐患。目前，区别技术在参照指导性案例之司法实践中的运用，仍处于自发探索的初级阶段，需要从多方面加以改进和完善，具体包括提供更多类型丰富的指导性案例、细化制度设计中操作性较强的技术性规定、借助程序性手段形成有效规制以及结合其他司法制度创新，等等。区别技术的改进和提升，能够有效推动法官在参照指导性案例时从自发走向自觉，进而充分发挥案例指导制度的应然价值。

关键词: 区别技术, 指导性案例, 因果关系, 裁判要点, 裁判理由

Abstract: The distinguishing technique is essential to the common law, which means to confirm if the precedents and case in hand are substantially similar.This technique is very meaningful to the application of guiding case in China.Based on the statistics of adjudicative documents that cite guiding case No.24, we can see that the judges can make different decisions with chaotic use of distinguishing technique.Even in the confirmation of similarity, the expanded use of guiding case No.24 is very questionable, which contains some potential danger.With all the analysis mentioned above, we should improve the distinguishing technique in the practice of guiding case system, such as more guiding cases published, more detailed rules, more procedural operations and more cooperation among judicial institutions.The improve of distinguishing technique of guiding casecan make the best of guiding case system as expected.

Key words: Distinguishing Technique, Guiding Case, Causation, Judgment Point, Judgment Reason