SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner中文AI newsFavorites
Skillslegal-judgment-prediction

legal-judgment-prediction

General & other

View repository

Updated 10-16 01:34

About this skill

Legal Judgment Prediction_8skills

I. Capability Overview

This composite capability is oriented toward criminal cases, receives case fact description text as input, and by coordinatively invoking 8 atomic capabilities, completes the full reasoning chain from fact parsing to judgment prediction, ultimately outputting a structured prediction report containing charge prediction, applicable legal provisions, sentencing prediction, sentencing circumstance analysis, and confidence assessment.

II. List of Selected Atomic Capabilities

2.1 Selected Atomic Capabilities

No. Name Reason for Selection
4 Extraction of Core Legal Elements The first step of judgment prediction must accurately extract indivisible core elements such as subject, act, object, time, result, and circumstances from the case fact text; this is the data foundation for all subsequent reasoning
5 Understanding of Legal Concepts It is necessary to match the extracted act elements to the statutory constitutive elements of specific charges and understand the connotation and extension of concepts such as "attempted crime," "burglary," and "joint crime" in order to accurately characterize the offense
6 Identification of Disputed Issues and Legal Relationships Cases often involve disputed issues such as concurrence of charges, disputes over completion versus attempt, and determination of principal and accessory offenders; identifying these issues directly affects the path selection for sentencing prediction
8 Legal Provision Retrieval After determining the charge, the corresponding criminal law provisions and judicial interpretations must be retrieved to obtain the legal basis for the statutory sentencing range, sentencing tier, and aggravating or mitigating circumstances
9 Case Retrieval By retrieving judgment results of similar cases, obtain sentencing patterns and range distributions in judicial practice, provide empirical data support for sentence prediction, and at the same time calibrate confidence
16 Deductive Reasoning Conduct syllogistic reasoning between legal norms (major premise) and case facts (minor premise), demonstrate item by item whether the constitutive elements are satisfied, and superimpose sentencing circumstances to derive the final sentence range
49 Application of Legal Document Format The prediction report needs to be output in a structured format, referring to the argumentation structure of the "this court holds" section in judicial documents, to ensure the professionalism and readability of the report
50 Standardized Expression of Legal Terminology The charge expressions, sentencing circumstance descriptions, and legal provision citations in the prediction report must use standardized legal terminology, avoid ambiguity, and ensure that the report can be directly used for legal practice reference

2.2 Excluded Atomic Capabilities

None excluded. This composite capability selects all 8 available atomic capabilities. The reasons are as follows:

Legal judgment prediction is a highly comprehensive legal reasoning task, from fact parsing (AS-4) to concept matching (AS-5), dispute identification (AS-6), legal provision retrieval (AS-8), case reference (AS-9), logical reasoning (AS-16), and then to the final report's format standardization (AS-49) and terminology standardization (AS-50); each link is indispensable. The absence of any one capability would lead to a decline in the accuracy or professionalism of the prediction result.

III. Complete Execution Workflow

Workflow Overview

输入：案件事实描述文本
  │
  ▼
[步骤1] AS-4 法律核心要素提取
  │
  ▼
[步骤2] AS-5 法律概念理解
  │
  ▼
[步骤3] AS-6 争议焦点和法律关系识别
  │
  ▼
[质量检查点 QC-1] ── 要素完整性与定性一致性验证
  │                         │
  │ 通过                    │ 不通过 → 回溯至步骤1或步骤2
  ▼
[步骤4] AS-8 法条检索
  │
  ▼
[步骤5] AS-9 案例检索
  │
  ▼
[质量检查点 QC-2] ── 法条适配性与案例相关性验证
  │                         │
  │ 通过                    │ 不通过 → 回溯至步骤3重新识别
  ▼
[步骤6] AS-16 演绎推理
  │
  ▼
[质量检查点 QC-3] ── 推理逻辑自洽性验证
  │                         │
  │ 通过                    │ 不通过 → 回溯至步骤4补充法条
  ▼
[步骤7] AS-49 法律文书格式适用
  │
  ▼
[步骤8] AS-50 法律术语规范表达
  │
  ▼
输出：结构化判决预测报告（含置信度）

Step 1: Extraction of Core Legal Elements

  • Capability invoked: AS-4 (Extraction of Core Legal Elements)
  • Input: Original case fact description text
  • Execution content:
    • Extract the following indivisible core elements from the text:
      • Subject elements: defendant identity, accomplice information, victim information
      • Act elements: specific criminal act, manner of act, tools used
      • Object elements: target of infringement, property involved and amount
      • Time elements: time of incident, time of capture, time span
      • Causation elements: causal chain between act and result
      • Result elements: whether the crime was completed, degree of actual harm
      • Circumstance elements: aggravating or mitigating circumstances such as voluntary surrender, confession, return of stolen goods or compensation, prior convictions and recidivism
  • Output: structured element list (in key-value pair form)
  • Pass to next step: complete structured element list

Case 1 example: Extract subject (Zhang 3), act (forging identity card, fraudulently obtaining property under a false name), purpose (repaying debt), target amount (100,000 yuan), result (was exposed and did not succeed), time (April 28, 2017).

Case 2 example: Extract subject (An Xu + Yang Mou joint crime), act (using tools to pry open a door and burglarize a residence), object (gold and silver jewelry), time (incident on May 9, 2016, captured on April 15, 2018), leniency circumstance (returned 3,000 yuan).

Step 2: Legal concept understanding

  • Capability invoked: AS-5 (legal concept understanding)
  • Input: structured element list output from Step 1
  • Execution content:
    • Based on the act elements, preliminarily match possible charges (one or more candidates)
    • For each candidate charge, set out its statutory constitutive elements (subject, subjective aspect, object, objective aspect)
    • Precisely define the special legal concepts involved, including but not limited to:
      • Concepts of criminal form (completed offense, attempted offense, discontinuation, preparation)
      • Concepts of joint crime (accomplice, principal offender, accessory, coerced participant)
      • Concepts of special act types (burglary of a residence, pickpocketing, theft while carrying a weapon, etc.)
      • Concepts of sentencing circumstances (voluntary surrender, confession, meritorious service, return of stolen goods or compensation, recidivism, etc.)
    • Preliminarily compare the case elements with the constitutive elements
  • Output: list of candidate charges and their decomposition of constitutive elements, definitions of special legal concepts involved
  • Pass to next step: comparison table of candidate charges and constitutive elements, list of special concepts

Case 1 example: Understand the constitutive elements of fraud—purpose of illegal possession, fabricating facts or concealing the truth, defrauding others of property, relatively large amount; understand attempted crime—already commenced committing the crime but failed to succeed due to reasons beyond one's will.

Case 2 example: Understand "burglary of a residence" in the crime of theft—criminalized regardless of amount; understand the criteria for determining joint crime; understand the criteria for distinguishing principal offender from accessory.

Step 3: Identification of disputed issues and legal relationships

  • Capability invoked: AS-6 (identification of disputed issues and legal relationships)
  • Input: structured element list from Step 1 + comparison table of candidate charges and constitutive elements from Step 2
  • Execution content:
    • Identify the core disputed issues that may exist in the case, typically including:
      • Charge dispute: Whether there is concurrence of charges or a dispute between this crime and another crime
      • Criminal form dispute: completed offense or attempted offense
      • Dispute over accomplice status: principal offender or accessory
      • Amount/circumstances dispute: which sentencing range the amount involved falls into
      • Sentencing circumstances dispute: whether a certain leniency/severity circumstance is established
    • Clarify the nature of the legal relationship between the parties (such as a joint crime relationship, or the relationship between the victim and the defendant)
    • Mark the impact weight of each disputed issue on the final judgment (high/medium/low)
  • Output: list of disputed issues (including impact weights), legal relationship map
  • Pass to next step: list of disputed issues and their impact weights

Case 1 example: Identify the disputed issue - whether it constitutes completed or attempted fraud (high impact); determination of "huge amount" - which sentencing range under Article 266 applies to 100,000 yuan (high impact).

Case 2 example: Identify the disputed issues - whether An Xu's status in the joint crime is principal offender or accessory (high impact); the impact of returning 3,000 yuan on sentencing (medium impact).

🔍 Quality checkpoint QC-1: Verification of element completeness and consistency of characterization

Verification logic:

Check item Verification standard Handling if not passed
Element completeness The four core elements of subject, act, object, and result have all been extracted, with no obvious omissions Trace back toStep 1, re-examine the original text and supplement omitted elements
Consistency of characterization There is no obvious contradiction between the constitutive elements of the candidate charges and the extracted elements Trace back toStep 2, re-examine whether there is any misunderstanding of the concepts
Sufficiency of dispute identification At least one disputed issue is identified; if the case facts are clear and undisputed, it must be explicitly marked as "no substantive dispute" Trace back toStep 3, check whether any potential dispute has been omitted
Element-dispute relevance Each disputed issue can be traced back to specific factual elements Trace back toStep 1orStep 3, supplement the connection

Step 4: Legal provision retrieval

  • Capability invoked: AS-8 (legal provision retrieval)
  • Input: candidate charges from Step 2 + list of disputed issues from Step 3
  • Execution content:
    • Retrieve the criminal law provisions directly corresponding to the candidate charges (conviction provisions)
    • Retrieve the general provisions related to the form of the crime (such as attempt, discontinuation, accomplice, etc.)
    • Retrieve provisions related to sentencing circumstances (such as voluntary surrender, confession, recidivism, return of stolen money or compensation, etc.)
    • Retrieve relevant judicial interpretations (such as amount standards, sentencing guidance opinions, etc.)
    • For each disputed issue, mark its corresponding legal basis
    • Extract the statutory sentencing range for each sentencing tier
  • Output: List of applicable legal provisions (including the full text of provisions or summaries of key content), and the statutory sentencing range for each sentencing tier
  • Pass to the next step: List of legal provisions and table of statutory sentencing ranges

Case 1 example: Retrieve Article 266 of the Criminal Law (fraud and sentencing range), Article 23 (attempted crime), and Article 67, paragraph 3 (leniency for truthful confession).

Case 2 example: Retrieve Article 264 of the Criminal Law (theft), Article 25 (joint crime), Article 67, paragraph 3 (truthful confession), Article 52 (fine), Article 53 (payment of fine), and Article 64 (recovery of illegal gains).

Step 5: Case retrieval

  • Capability invoked: AS-9 (case retrieval)
  • Input: Candidate charges from Step 2 + disputed issues from Step 3 + applicable legal provisions from Step 4
  • Execution content:
    • Use the charge, form of crime, amount involved, and sentencing circumstances as retrieval keywords to find similar cases
    • Focus on case matching in the following dimensions:
      • Same chargecases
      • Same form of crime(such as both being attempted) cases
      • Similar amount involved/circumstancescases
      • Same region(if regional information is available) cases (taking regional sentencing differences into account)
    • Extract the distribution of sentencing outcomes from the retrieved cases (prison term range, fine range)
    • For disputed issues, find the court's adjudication tendencies in relevant precedents
    • Calculate the central tendency of sentencing outcomes to form a sentencing reference range
  • Output: Summary of similar case retrieval results, sentencing reference range, and adjudication tendencies on disputed issues
  • Pass to the next step: Sentencing reference range and adjudication tendency data

Case 1 example: Find the sentencing patterns of similar attempted fraud cases to assist in judging the reasonableness of the seven-month sentencing range.

Case 2 example: Summarize the sentencing patterns in Shanghai judicial practice from similar residential burglary cases; find relevant precedents on the criteria for determining accessories.

🔍 Quality checkpoint QC-2: Verification of legal provision applicability and case relevance

Check item Verification standard Handling if not passed
Legal provision coverage Conviction provisions, crime form provisions, and sentencing circumstance provisions have all been retrieved Trace back toStep 4, supplement omitted legal provisions
Legal provision applicability The retrieved legal provisions logically match the candidate charges and disputed issues, with no mismatching Trace back toStep 3, re-examine the characterization of the charge
Case relevance The retrieved cases are comparable to the current case in dimensions such as charges, circumstances, and amounts Trace back toStep 5, adjust the search keywords and search again
Reasonableness of the sentencing range The sentencing range derived from case retrieval falls within the statutory sentencing range Check whether the statutory provision retrieval omitted provisions on aggravating/mitigating circumstances

Step 6: Deductive reasoning

  • Capability invoked: AS-16 (deductive reasoning)
  • Input: All outputs of Steps 1-5 (element list, constitutive elements, points of dispute, statutory provisions, case references)
  • Execution content:
    • First layer of reasoning—conviction reasoning:
      • Major premise: The constitutive elements of charge X are A, B, C, D (from Steps 2 and 4)
      • Minor premise: The facts of the case satisfy elements a, b, c, d (from Step 1)
      • Conclusion: The defendant's conduct constitutes charge X
      • Argue item by item whether each constitutive element is satisfied
    • Second layer of reasoning—criminal form reasoning:
      • Determine completed attempt/attempted/discontinued based on the result element
      • If it is an attempt, argue the two conditions of "already commenced" and "for reasons beyond one's will"
    • Third layer of reasoning—sentencing tier reasoning:
      • Determine the baseline sentencing tier based on the amount involved/circumstances
      • superimpose the impact of the criminal form on sentencing (e.g., an attempt may be given a lighter or mitigated punishment)
    • Fourth layer of reasoning—reasoning on the superposition of sentencing circumstances:
      • Evaluate each sentencing circumstance one by one (surrender, confession, return of proceeds, recidivism, etc.)
      • Superimpose and adjust in the order of "mitigation first, then lighter punishment"
      • Combine with the sentencing range derived from case retrieval to derive the final predicted sentence value and range
    • Fifth layer of reasoning—accessory penalty reasoning:
      • Derive the amount of the fine (referring to statutory provisions and case practice)
      • Derive whether restitution, confiscation, and other accessory judgment items are needed
    • Reasoning for adjudicating points of dispute:
      • For each point of dispute identified in Step 3, provide a reasoning conclusion and reasons
      • Mark the degree of certainty of that conclusion
    • Confidence assessment:
      • Assess the prediction confidence by integrating the following factors:
        • The degree of clarity of the match with the constitutive elements
        • The number and complexity of the points of dispute
        • The consistency of the case retrieval results
        • The certainty of the sentencing circumstances
      • Output the confidence level (high/medium/low) and a specific percentage estimate
  • Output: Complete reasoning chain, charge prediction, sentence prediction (point estimate + range), fine prediction, accessory judgment item prediction, adjudication conclusions on points of dispute, confidence assessment
  • Pass to the next step: All reasoning conclusions

Case example 1: ①Each constitutive element of fraud is satisfied item by item → constitutes fraud; ②being exposed before obtaining the property is a reason beyond one's will → attempted crime is established; ③100,000 yuan falls within the "huge amount" sentencing tier, and an attempt may be given a lighter or mitigated punishment by reference to the completed offense; ④superimpose the lighter punishment for truthful confession → derive seven months of fixed-term imprisonment + a fine of 30,000 yuan.

Case Two Example: ① The elements of burglary are satisfied → the crime of theft is established; ② the two conspired and jointly committed the act → joint crime is established; ③ defense counsel argued for accessory status, but there is insufficient evidentiary support → not accepted; ④ truthful confession + disgorgement of illicit gains as mitigating factors → derivation of six months of fixed-term imprisonment + a fine of 2,000 yuan + an order to return compensation.

🔍 Quality Checkpoint QC-3: Verification of Reasoning Logic Consistency

Check Item Verification Standard Handling If Not Passed
Complete argumentation of constitutive elements Each constitutive element is supported by corresponding factual elements, with no argumentative leaps Trace back toStep 1supplement elements orStep 2correct the understanding of the constitutive elements
Correctness of the sentencing range The derived sentencing range is consistent with the amount/ circumstances standards provided by the legal provisions Trace back toStep 4Verify the amount standards in the legal provisions and judicial interpretations
Reasonableness of the imprisonment term interval The predicted imprisonment term falls within the statutory sentencing range and basically matches the sentencing range retrieved from cases Trace back toStep 5Expand the scope of case retrieval, or trace back toStep 6Re-evaluate the stacking of circumstances
No contradictions in the reasoning chain The conviction conclusion, form conclusion, and sentencing conclusion are logically consistent with no contradictions before and after Trace back layer by layer to investigate contradiction points
Reasonableness of confidence level The confidence level assessment matches factors such as the number of disputed issues and case consistency Re-assess the confidence level

Step 7: Application of Legal Document Format

  • Capability invoked: AS-49 (Application of Legal Document Format)
  • Input: All reasoning conclusions from Step 6
  • Execution content:
    • Identify the output document type as a "sentencing prediction report"
    • Organize the report content according to the following structured format:
      1. Basic case information: parties, cause of action, time and place of the incident
      2. Summary of fact-finding: structured presentation of core factual elements
      3. Charge prediction: predicted charge and argumentation of constitutive elements
      4. Analysis of disputed issues: analysis conclusion for each disputed issue
      5. Applicable legal provisions: complete list of legal provisions and reasons for application
      6. Sentencing prediction：
        • Baseline sentencing range
        • Adjustment of sentencing circumstances
        • Principal punishment prediction (point estimate + interval)
        • Accessory punishment prediction (fine, etc.)
        • Prediction of other judgment items (return of compensation, confiscation, etc.)
      7. Similar case reference: summary of key reference cases
      8. Confidence level assessment: overall confidence level and sub-item confidence levels for each stage
      9. Risk warning: explanation of factors that may cause prediction deviation
  • Output: Formatted predictive report framework (including content for each section)
  • Pass to the next step: Complete report draft

Case 1 example (format reference): Criminal judgment format, setting out in order the party information, the prosecution authority's allegations, findings of fact, this court's opinion, the judgment's operative part, calculation of the sentence term, notice of appeal, and appended relevant legal provisions. The predictive report refers to this structure but adjusts it to a predictive perspective.

Case 2 example (format reference): The operative part of the judgment is listed item by item—1. conviction and sentencing; 2. restitution order. The predictive report likewise lists each judgment item prediction item by item.

Step 8: Standardized expression of legal terminology

  • Capability invoked: AS-50 (Standardized expression of legal terminology)
  • Input: The report draft output from Step 7
  • Execution content:
    • Review item by item whether the use of legal terminology in the report is accurate and standardized:
      • Whether the statement of the charge is fully consistent with the provisions of the Criminal Law (e.g., "fraud crime" rather than "fraud")
      • Whether the statement of the form of the crime is standardized (e.g., "attempted crime" rather than "attempted offender")
      • Whether the statement of sentencing circumstances is standardized (e.g., "truthfully confessing one's crime" rather than "coming clean")
      • Whether the statement of the penalty is standardized (e.g., "sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of X months" rather than "sentenced to X months")
      • Whether the statement of the fine is standardized (e.g., "and concurrently sentenced to a fine of RMB X yuan")
      • Whether the format for citing legal provisions is standardized (e.g., "Article 266 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China")
    • Check whether there are ambiguous expressions and correct them
    • Ensure that the wording of the predictive report meets the requirements of legal style, is solemn, accurate, and free of colloquial expressions
  • Output: The final predictive report after terminology standardization
  • Final output: Structured judgment prediction report (including confidence level)

Case 1 example: Ensure that expressions such as "attempted crime," "given a lighter or mitigated punishment by reference to the completed offense," "sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment," and "and concurrently sentenced to a fine" conform to criminal document standards.

Case 2 example: Ensure that expressions such as "burglary," "joint crime," "disgorgement of illegal gains," and "return to the victim after restitution of illegal gains" are standardized and accurate.

IV. Conditional branches and backtracking mechanism

4.1 Multi-charge candidate branch

Trigger condition: In Step 2, two or more candidate charges are identified and cannot be directly excluded in Step 2.

Handling path:

  • In Step 3, list "the dispute between this crime and that crime" as a high-impact disputed focus
  • In Step 4, simultaneously retrieve the legal provisions for all candidate charges
  • In the deductive reasoning of Step 6, conduct constitutive element argumentation separately for each candidate charge, and choose one for determination
  • If a unique charge still cannot be determined, list the preferred charge and alternative charges in the report, with confidence levels given separately

4.2 Criminal form branch

Trigger condition: The outcome elements extracted in Step 1 show that the crime may not have been completed (e.g., keywords such as "did not succeed," "attempt," "discontinuation").

Handling path:

  • In Step 2, the conceptual understanding of attempted crime/discontinued crime must be expanded
  • In Step 4, Article 23 (attempt) or Article 24 (discontinuation) of the Criminal Law must be retrieved
  • Add "second-layer reasoning—criminal form reasoning" to the deductive reasoning in step 6
  • In sentencing prediction, the adjustment effect of attempt/suspension on the statutory penalty must be considered

Case One is exactly this branch: Zhang 3 was detected and did not succeed → trigger the attempted crime branch → retrieve Article 23 → reason that attempt is established → sentencing is lighter or mitigated by comparison with the completed offense.

4.3 Joint Crime Branch

Trigger conditions: In the subject elements extracted in step 1, there are two or more persons jointly committing the criminal act.

Handling path:

  • In step 2, the conceptual understanding of joint crime and principal offender/accessory must be developed
  • In step 3, "the defendant's status in the joint crime" must be listed as a disputed issue
  • In step 4, Articles 25-29 of the Criminal Law (provisions related to joint crime) must be retrieved
  • In step 6, it must be argued whether the defendant is a principal offender or an accessory, and sentencing must be adjusted accordingly

Case Two is exactly this branch: An Xu colluded with Yang Mou → trigger the joint crime branch → retrieve Article 25 → the defender argued for accessory status but the evidence was insufficient → determine that he is not an accessory → the accessory mitigation does not apply.

4.4 Insufficient Information Backtracking

Trigger conditions: At any step, it is discovered that the description of the case facts lacks key information, making it impossible to complete the reasoning for the current step.

Handling path:

  • Clearly mark the missing information items in the report
  • Make the best estimate based on the existing information while lowering the confidence level of that link
  • In the "Risk Warning" section, explain the prediction bias that may be caused by the missing information

4.5 Legal Provision Conflict Backtracking

Trigger conditions: There is a conflict among the legal provisions retrieved in step 4 (such as the connection between old and new laws, or concurrence between general law and special law).

Handling path:

  • Backtrack to step 5 and understand legal application principles such as "observing the old law while applying the lighter punishment" and "special law prevails over general law"
  • In step 6, clearly argue which legal provision applies and the reasons for it
  • In the confidence assessment, consider the uncertainty brought by the conflict of legal provisions

V. Summary of Quality Checkpoints

Checkpoint Location Core verification content Backtracking target
QC-1 After step 3 Completeness of elements, consistency of characterization, adequacy of dispute identification Steps 1/2/3
QC-2 After step 5 Coverage and suitability of legal provisions, relevance of cases, reasonableness of sentencing range Steps 3/4/5
QC-3 After step 6 Complete argumentation of constituent elements, correctness of sentencing tier, reasonableness of the term of sentence, no contradictions in reasoning Steps 1/4/5/6

Backtracking limit: The same checkpoint may trigger backtracking at most 2 times. If it still does not pass after 2 backtracks, mark in the report that there is uncertainty in that link, lower the confidence level, and continue executing subsequent steps.

VI. Output Format Specification

The format of the final structured judgment prediction report is as follows:

═══════════════════════════════════════
          法律判决预测报告
═══════════════════════════════════════

【一、案件基本信息】
  被告人：
  案  由：
  案发时间：
  案发地点：

【二、事实认定摘要】
  （核心事实要素的结构化呈现）

【三、罪名预测】
  预测罪名：
  构成要件论证：
    (1) ……
    (2) ……
    (3) ……
    (4) ……

【四、争议焦点分析】
  争议焦点1：……
    分析结论：……
    确定性：高/中/低
  争议焦点2：……
    分析结论：……
    确定性：高/中/低

【五、适用法条】
  (1) 《刑法》第XXX条——……
  (2) 《刑法》第XXX条——……
  (3) ……

【六、量刑预测】
  基准量刑档次：……
  量刑情节调整：
    - 从轻情节：……
    - 从重情节：……
  主刑预测：有期徒刑X个月（预测区间：X-Y个月）
  附加刑预测：罚金人民币X元
  其他判项：……

【七、类案参考】
  参考案例1：……（量刑结果：……）
  参考案例2：……（量刑结果：……）

【八、置信度评估】
  总体置信度：X%（高/中/低）
  分项置信度：
    - 罪名预测：X%
    - 犯罪形态：X%
    - 量刑预测：X%

【九、风险提示】
  (1) ……
  (2) ……

═══════════════════════════════════════

VII. Complete Example

Example One: Attempted fraud case (Case One)

Input: Public prosecution organ alleges: At around 15:00 on April 28, 2017, defendant Zhang 3, in order to repay debts, forged the identity card of his younger sister "Zhang 2"; afterwards, defendant Zhang 3, assuming the name "Zhang 2", used the forged identity card of "Zhang 2" and the previously obtained real estate registration information under Zhang 2's name, intending to defraud victims Liu Moumou and Xu Moumou of RMB 100,000 in cash, but was detected on the spot by victims Liu Moumou and Xu Moumou and did not succeed. (Evidence section omitted)

Execution process:

Step 1 [AS-4]:

  • Input: Original case fact text
  • Extraction result:
    • Subject: Defendant Zhang 3
    • Act: Forging an identity card, assuming the name "Zhang 2", using the forged identity card and real estate registration information to defraud cash
    • Purpose: Repaying debts (purpose of illegal possession)
    • Object: Cash of victims Liu Moumou and Xu Moumou
    • Amount: RMB 100,000
    • Result: Detected on the spot, did not succeed
    • Time: Around 15:00 on April 28, 2017
    • Circumstance: The defendant raised no objection during the trial (truthful confession)
  • Transfer: Structured element checklist

Step 2 [AS-5]:

  • Input: Structured element checklist
  • Candidate charge: Crime of fraud (Article 266 of the Criminal Law)
  • Decomposition of constitutive elements:
    • Subject: General subject ✓
    • Subjective aspect: With the purpose of illegal possession (repaying debts → illegal possession)
    • Objective aspect: Fabricating facts (forging an identity card, assuming a name), defrauding others of property
    • Object: Ownership of public and private property
  • Special concept: Attempted crime — has commenced committing the crime but did not succeed due to reasons independent of the will
  • Transfer: Candidate charge (crime of fraud), comparison table of constitutive elements, concept of attempted crime

Step 3 [AS-6]:

  • Input: Element checklist + comparison table of constitutive elements
  • Identification of disputed issues:
    • Issue 1: Form of crime — completed or attempted (high impact)
    • Issue 2: Determination of amount — whether RMB 100,000 falls under "relatively large amount" or "huge amount" (high impact)
  • Legal relationship: The criminal fraud relationship between defendant Zhang 3 and victims Liu Moumou and Xu Moumou
  • Transfer: List of disputed issues

✅ QC-1 verification: The four core elements are complete; the constitutive elements of the crime of fraud are consistent with the factual elements; the two high-impact disputed issues have been identified. → Passed

Step 4 [AS-8]:

  • Input: Candidate charge (crime of fraud) + disputed issues
  • Retrieval results:
    • Article 266 of the Criminal Law: Whoever defrauds public or private property, if the amount is relatively large, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or control, and shall also or only be fined; if the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years, and shall also be fined
    • Article 23 of the Criminal Law: A crime that has been commenced but not completed due to reasons independent of the will of the criminal is an attempted crime. For an attempted offender, the punishment may be lighter or reduced compared with that for a completed crime
    • Article 67, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law: Although a criminal suspect does not have the circumstances of surrender as provided in the preceding two paragraphs, if he truthfully confesses his crime, he may be given a lighter punishment
    • Relevant judicial interpretation: Fraud of RMB 100,000 falls under the "huge amount" tier
  • Transfer: List of legal provisions, sentencing range (large amount: 3-10 years)

Step 5 [AS-9]:

  • Input: Crime of fraud + attempted + large amount
  • Search results: In similar attempted fraud cases (large amount range), after applying mitigated punishment, the sentences are mostly between 6 months and 1 year 6 months; fines are mostly between 10,000 and 50,000 yuan
  • Transfer: Sentencing reference range (6 months-1 year 6 months), fine reference range (10,000-50,000 yuan)

✅ QC-2 Verification: Conviction provisions, attempt provisions, and leniency provisions have all been searched; the case is highly comparable to the current case. → Passed

Step 6 [AS-16]:

  • Input: All prior outputs
  • Reasoning process:
    • First layer (conviction): Zhang 3, with the purpose of illegal possession → fabricated facts (forged ID card and impersonation) → defrauded others of property → all constitutive elements of the crime of fraud are satisfied →Constitutes the crime of fraud
    • Second layer (form): Already began implementing the fraudulent act → was discovered on the spot by the victim (for reasons beyond his will) → did not succeed (failed to accomplish) →Attempted crime is established
    • Third layer (sentencing range): Target amount 100,000 yuan → falls under "large amount" → baseline sentencing range: 3 years or more but less than 10 years
    • Fourth layer (cumulative circumstances): Attempt → may be given a mitigated punishment by reference to the completed offense → breaks through the 3-year lower limit; truthful confession → may be given a lenient punishment → further leniency on the basis after mitigation
    • Fifth layer (accessory punishment): Reference case fine range → predicted fine 30,000 yuan
    • Ruling on disputed issues: Issue 1 → Attempt is established (high certainty); Issue 2 → 100,000 yuan falls under large amount (high certainty)
    • Final prediction: Fixed-term imprisonment of 7 months (range: 6-10 months), and concurrently a fine of RMB 30,000
    • Confidence level: Overall 85% (charge 95%, form 90%, sentencing 75%)

✅ QC-3 Verification: The constitutive elements are fully demonstrated item by item; 7 months is within the reasonable range after mitigated punishment; it is consistent with the case search range. → Passed

Step 7 [AS-49]:

  • Organize all content according to the prediction report format

Step 8 [AS-50]:

  • Terminology standardization:
    • "Crime of fraud" (not "fraud") ✓
    • "Attempted crime" (not "attempted offender") ✓
    • "Given a lighter or mitigated punishment by reference to a completed offense" ✓
    • "Sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of seven months" ✓
    • "And concurrently a fine of RMB 30,000" ✓

Final output (summary):

  • Predicted charge: Crime of fraud
  • Criminal form: Attempted crime
  • Applicable legal provisions: Article 266, Article 23, and Article 67, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law
  • Principal punishment prediction: Fixed-term imprisonment of seven months (prediction range: six to ten months)
  • Accessory punishment prediction: And concurrently a fine of RMB 30,000
  • Overall confidence level: 85%

Comparison with actual judgment: Defendant Zhang 3 committed the crime of fraud, was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of seven months, and concurrently a fine of RMB 30,000.The prediction is completely consistent with the actual judgment.

Example 2: Joint crime case of burglary (Case 2)

Input: The People's Procuratorate of Changning District, Shanghai Municipality alleges: At around 13:00 on May 9, 2016, the defendant An Xu, together with Yang Mou (already sentenced), went to Room XXX, No. XXX, Fuquan Road, Changning District, Shanghai, used self-prepared tools to pry open the door and burglarize the premises, stole multiple pieces of gold and silver jewelry placed by the victim Gong Moumou in the third-floor storage room, and then fled. On April 15, 2018, the defendant An Xu was apprehended by public security authorities at Guangzhou Railway Station. After the incident, the defendant An Xu, with the help of family members, returned part of the illegal proceeds, RMB 3,000. (Evidence section omitted)

Execution process:

Step 1 [AS-4]:

  • Input: original case fact text
  • Extraction result:
    • Subject: defendant An Xu, accomplice Yang Mou (already sentenced) → joint crime
    • Act: used self-prepared tools to pry open the door and burglarize the premises
    • Object: multiple pieces of gold and silver jewelry of the victim Gong Moumou
    • Time: incident on May 9, 2016; arrested on April 15, 2018
    • Location: Changning District, Shanghai Municipality
    • Result: completed theft (fled after stealing property)
    • Circumstances: returned part of the illegal proceeds, RMB 3,000; no objection at trial (truthful confession)
  • Transfer: structured element list

Step 2 [AS-5]:

  • Input: structured element list
  • Candidate charge: theft (Article 264 of the Criminal Law)
  • Decomposition of constitutive elements:
    • Subject: general subject ✓
    • Subjective aspect: with the purpose of illegal possession
    • Objective aspect: burglary (special type of conduct)
    • Object: ownership of public and private property
  • Special concepts:
    • "Burglary" — illegally entering another person's residence to steal; regardless of the amount, it constitutes the crime of theft
    • Joint crime — intentional crime committed jointly by two or more persons
    • Distinction between principal offender and accessory — one who plays a major role in a joint crime is a principal offender; one who plays a secondary or auxiliary role is an accessory
  • Transfer: candidate charge (theft), comparison table of constitutive elements, list of special concepts

Step 3 [AS-6]:

  • Input: element list + comparison table of constitutive elements
  • Identification of disputed issues:
    • Issue 1: An Xu's status in the joint crime — principal offender or accessory (high impact)
    • Issue 2: the degree of impact of returning RMB 3,000 on sentencing (medium impact)
    • Issue 3: determination of the value of the gold and silver jewelry involved (medium impact, but the amount is not specified in the factual description)
  • Legal relationships: the joint crime relationship between An Xu and Yang Mou; the theft crime relationship between An Xu and the victim Gong Moumou
  • Transfer: list of disputed issues

✅ QC-1 verification: Core elements complete; the constitutive elements of theft are consistent with the facts; three disputed issues have been identified. Note: the specific value of the property involved is not specified and is marked as an item with insufficient information. → Passed (with insufficient information annotation)

Step 4 [AS-8]:

  • Input: candidate charge (theft) + disputed issues
  • Search results:
    • Article 264 of the Criminal Law: Whoever steals public or private property, if the amount is relatively large, or if there are multiple thefts, burglary, theft with a weapon, or pickpocketing, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or control, and shall also or only be fined
    • Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law: A joint crime refers to an intentional crime committed by two or more persons jointly
    • Article 67, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law: If a person truthfully confesses his own crimes, he may be given a lighter punishment
    • Article 52 of the Criminal Law: When imposing a fine, the amount of the fine shall be determined according to the circumstances of the crime
    • Article 53 of the Criminal Law: A fine shall be paid in a lump sum or in installments within the time limit specified in the judgment
    • Article 64 of the Criminal Law: All property illegally obtained by a criminal shall be recovered or ordered to be returned or compensated
  • Pass on: List of legal provisions, sentencing range (residential burglary: under 3 years)

Step 5 [AS-9]:

  • Input: Theft crime + residential burglary + Shanghai region + joint crime
  • Search results:
    • In residential burglary cases in the Shanghai region, sentences are mostly between 6 months and 1 year and 6 months
    • In a joint crime, if there is insufficient evidence to prove accessory status, the court usually does not find the person to be an accessory
    • Returning part of the illegal proceeds may be given discretionary leniency, but the extent of the impact is limited
    • Fines are mostly between 1,000 and 5,000 yuan
  • Pass on: Sentencing reference range (6 months–1 year and 6 months), judicial tendency on finding accessory status

✅ QC-2 verification: Legal provisions are fully covered; the cases are highly comparable to the current case in charge, type of conduct, and region. → Passed

Step 6 [AS-16]:

  • Input: All prior outputs
  • Reasoning process:
    • First layer (conviction): An Xu used a tool to pry open the door and enter another person's residence to steal → conforms to "residential burglary" → regardless of the amount, it constitutes theft →Theft crime is established
    • Second layer (form): After stealing gold and silver jewelry, he fled → the crime was completed
    • Joint crime branch triggered:
      • An Xu and Yang jointly carried it out → the two intentionally committed the crime together → joint crime is established
      • Disputed issue ruling: Is An Xu an accessory? → In the description of the case facts, An Xu and Yang went together and carried it out together, and there is no evidence showing that An Xu played only a secondary or auxiliary role → combined with the court's judicial tendency in the case search →Not found to be an accessory(Medium-high certainty)
    • Third layer (sentencing range): Residential burglary → baseline sentencing range: fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 3 years
    • Fourth layer (overlapping circumstances): Truthful confession → lighter punishment; returning 3,000 yuan → discretionary lighter punishment; comprehensive consideration → lighter punishment within the baseline range
    • Fifth layer (additional punishment): Reference case → predicted fine of 2,000 yuan; illegal proceeds → ordered to return and compensate
    • Final prediction: Fixed-term imprisonment of 6 months (range: 6–10 months), and a concurrent fine of RMB 2,000, and ordered to return the illegal proceeds to the victim
    • Confidence: Overall 80% (charge 95%, finding of joint crime status 75%, sentencing 70%)

✅ QC-3 verification: The argument on the constitutive elements is complete; 6 months is within the statutory sentencing range and the case range; there is no contradiction in the reasoning chain. → Passed

Step 7 [AS-49]:

  • Organize all content according to the prediction report format, with special attention to:
    • The judgment items are divided into two items: conviction and sentencing, and return/compensation instructions
    • In the analysis of the disputed issues, clearly state the reasons why the accessory claim is not accepted

Step 8 [AS-50]:

  • Terminology standardization:
    • "Theft crime" (not "stealing crime") ✓
    • "Residential burglary" ✓
    • "Joint crime" ✓
    • "Sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of six months" ✓
    • "And concurrently fined 2,000 yuan" ✓
    • "Order the defendant An Xu to return the illegal gains and then return them to the victim Gong Moumou" ✓

Final output (summary):

  • Predicted charge: theft
  • Form of crime: completed crime
  • Applicable legal provisions: Article 264, Article 25, Paragraph 1, Article 67, Paragraph 3, Article 52, Article 53, and Article 64 of the Criminal Law
  • Principal penalty prediction: fixed-term imprisonment of six months (prediction range: six to ten months)
  • Supplementary penalty prediction: and concurrently fined 2,000 yuan
  • Other judgment items: order the return of illegal gains and then return them to the victim
  • Conclusion on disputed issues: the defender's claim of being an accomplice is not adopted
  • Overall confidence: 80%

Comparison with actual judgment: 1. The defendant An Xu committed theft and is sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of six months and concurrently fined 2,000 yuan. 2. Order the defendant An Xu to return the illegal gains and then return them to the victim Gong Moumou. The court does not adopt the defense opinion that An Xu was in a secondary position in the joint crime.The prediction is completely consistent with the actual judgment.

VIII. Notes and boundary explanations

  1. Scope of application: This composite capability is mainly applicable to the prediction of judgments in criminal cases with clear facts and sufficient evidence. For cases with major factual disputes or insufficient evidence, the confidence should be significantly reduced.

  2. Confidence calibration rules:

    • Number of disputed issues ≥ 3 and all with high impact → overall confidence upper limit is 70%
    • Large dispersion in the sentencing distribution of case retrieval results → sentencing prediction confidence is reduced by 10-20%
    • Missing information on amount involved/circumstances → sentencing prediction confidence is reduced by 15-25%
    • All constitutive elements are clearly satisfied and undisputed → charge prediction confidence can reach 95%

  3. Backtracking efficiency guarantee: Each quality check point triggers at most 2 backtracks to avoid infinite loops. If problems still exist after 2 backtracks, mark the uncertainty and continue to proceed.

  4. Handling of multiple defendants: If the case involves multiple defendants, the sentencing reasoning of step 6 must be performed separately for each defendant, but the results of steps 1-5 can be shared.

  5. This capability does not involve: Civil case prediction, administrative case prediction, legal consultation advice, defense strategy formulation, and other tasks beyond the scope of criminal judgment prediction.