綜合文獻上的論述，法感可以歸納為四種功能：批判功能、擔保功能、設證功能及法源功能，法院判決多集中在對實證法的批判功能上。在「玻璃娃娃致死案」及「保險理賠協商時效抗辯案」中，最高法院廢棄發回之判決意旨，不僅運用「法戚」在法管判決中的設證功能，以取得解決問題的初步方向；而且也發揮「法感」對實證法的批判功能，以之作為「對實證法的批判機制，作為有經驗的法律人處理法律問題的直覺判斷」的最佳印證。某程度而言可以說，在法官作成判斷的過程中，其實都只是為了獲致一個符合國民法律感情，符合法律的社會目的之答案而已。

After Summarizing the argumentations of the literature, the Sense of Justice can be concluded as four functions: the Critical function, the Security function, the Abduction function and the Legal Source function. The function most exercised by the courts is the one of criticizing the positive laws. In the so called ＂Glass Doll＂ case and the ＂Limitation (Prescription) of Insurance Claims＂ case, the judgments of the Supreme Court not only use the Abduction function of ＂ Sense of Justice＂ in order the obtain the initial direction of solving the problems, but also play its critical function ＂as a critical mechanism for positive law, as a evidence to the intuition for a legal person with abundant experiences dealing with legal issues＂. To certain extent we can certify that the process during the judge making judgments is in fact just to be in accordance with national legal feelings and to answer the legal social purposes.