摘要： 强调同案同判的同时,不能忽视差异化判决的现实意义,不应简单地将差异化判决视为同案同判的对立面。合理的差异化判决源自同案同判原则的非绝对性,也构成对同案同判原则的动态调适。差异化判决在司法实践中存在“过度化”与“保守化”两种偏差,以及为了防止其沦为恣意裁判,因而须明确其中的说理义务。相较于一般性判决,差异化判决的说理义务在说理逻辑及论证结构、受众预期及说理目标、义务属性及约束强度、说理功能及作用机制等方面均存在特殊之处。差异化判决说理义务的内容主要包括事实认定差异的说理、价值衡量差异的说理、法律解释差异的说理等三个向度。差异化判决说理的有效性不仅依赖于内容要素的完备,也需立足我国成文法体制与司法运行机制,从实体规范构造、程序机制构建、文书载体优化、监督保障机制等方面构筑制度体系。

关键词: 同案同判, 差异化判决, 说理义务, 制度构造

Abstract: While emphasizing “like cases be treated alike”, we should not overlook the practical significance of differentiated judgments, nor simply regard them as the antithesis of this principle.Legitimate differentiated judgments derive from the non-absoluteness of the principle of “like cases be treated alike” and also constitute its dynamic adjustment.Judicial practice regarding differentiated judgments exhibits two dilemmatic deviations:“over-application” and “over-conservatism”, which makes it all the more necessary to clarify the reason-giving obligation therein.Compared with the reason-giving obligation of general judgments, the reason-giving obligation of differentiated judgments has special characteristics in aspects such as reasoning logic and argument structure, audience expectations and reasoning objectives, obligation attributes and constraint intensity, as well as reasoning functions and operational logic.The content of the reason-giving obligation for differentiated judgments mainly includes three dimensions: reasoning on differences in fact-finding, reasoning on differences in value weighing, and reasoning on differences in legal interpretation.Among these, the first two are the fundamental dimensions, while reasoning on differences in legal interpretation is an incidental extension of the first two, yet it still holds undeniable significance.The effectiveness of reasoning for differentiated judgments not only depends on the completeness of content elements but also needs to be based on China's civil law system and judicial operation mechanism, constructing an institutional system from aspects such as the construction of substantive norms, the establishment of procedural mechanisms, the optimization of document carriers, and the development of supervision and guarantee mechanisms.

Key words: Like Cases Be Treated Alike, Differentiated Judgments, Reason-Giving Obligation, Institutional Construction