What should I do if the evidence accepted by the court of first and second instance is obviously inconsistent with the facts?

(1) Evidence that has not been cross-examined by the court cannot be used as the basis for the court's judgment. This is the provision of article 3 1 of the judicial interpretation, and it is the most basic rule for the court to accept evidence. Any evidence can only be used as the basis of judgment after cross-examination. This is not only because there is no evidence that has been cross-examined, but also because it has not been tested, and its probative power and credibility are very doubtful. It is also because only in this way can the parties' rights of proof and cross-examination be fully guaranteed and respected.

(2) The evidence collected and supplemented by the reconsideration organ in the process of reconsideration cannot be used as the basis for the court to maintain the original specific administrative act. This is stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 3 1 of the Judicial Interpretation, and its purpose is still to ensure that the administrative organ that makes a specific administrative act must have sufficient and conclusive evidence when making a decision. This indirectly prohibits the reconsideration organ from collecting and supplementing evidence for the original specific administrative act during the reconsideration process.

(3) The evidence submitted by the defendant to the court during the second instance, which was not submitted during the first instance, cannot be used as the basis for the court of second instance to revoke or change the judgment of first instance.

The basic purpose of criminal proceedings in China is to punish crimes and protect human rights. Whether for the purpose of punishing crimes or protecting human rights, it is required that the facts of the case are clear and the evidence is true and sufficient. Because using evidence to determine the facts of a case is different from proof in natural science, acknowledging "knowability" does not mean that every case can be found out. Never doubt is an allocation rule of the principle of presumption of innocence, and it is also an important rule of the admissibility of evidence. The determination of any case must rely on reliable and sufficient evidence. If you can't produce reliable and sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant committed a crime and can't meet the standard of proof, you must turn it into a "acquittal". The guiding significance of implementing the rule of accepting evidence without doubt lies in: first, when there are contradictions between evidence and evidence that cannot be ruled out, the principle of never suspecting a crime and not prosecuting if there is doubt should be adopted. Second, when the admissibility of evidence can not meet the requirements of "the facts of the case are clear and the evidence is true and sufficient", the conviction and sentencing should still be refused on the grounds of insufficient evidence.