證據得證明至事實之心證形成過程，應依該證據本身可得證明之事實的高度蓋然率為標準。本文將程序上用以證明事實之要素，分為「行為主體事實」、「行為形式事實」、「行為客體事實」及「法益侵害事實」，作用乃是用以證明事實之存在與否之分類。由於我國刑事訴訟法上對於法定證據方法及法定調查程序未加以定位，關於形成事實心證前之前置審查階段亦未建立明確之程序依據，甚至未區分「嚴格調查證據程序」及「一般調查證據程序」，導致「法定證據方法」常與「法定調查程序」混淆，本文爰自提出證據心證主義之制度，期對於此一原則之建立，有所助益。

Convincing evidence should support a series of fact finding developed by a
judge's inner conviction in order to achieve a particular result. This can reflect conclusive proof through maintaining high standards of evidence quality that is acceptable for a particular situation. This article writes about four facts, including behavioral entity facts,
behavioral formed facts, behavioral objective facts, and infringed law
and discipline facts. Based on the facts, the special purpose of proof can follow normal procedure to reach facts from the deciding factors and prove existence of the facts. Taiwan's The Code of Criminal Procedure has not identified clearly how lawful methods the evidence applies to and what the recognized procedures should implement and investigate. Lacking of the precise judiciary proceedings on examination, the early stage of developing fact finding does not differentiate the strict investigating
procedure on evidence from the general investigating procedure on evidence. This confuses the legal evidential methods with the legal investigating procedures. This article hopes to help provide meaningful opinions on principle of the system of evidence and inner conviction.