大眾對法官的第一印象不外乎以「恐龍」形容其腦袋僵化、冥頑不靈的思考模式。由於法官的判決與人民對於加害者判刑的期待相差甚遠，造成了法律實務者被形塑成高高在上、不知人間疾苦的法匠木偶。然而，法學教育中最強調的就是思辨，無論從刑法、民法在論罪處刑的架構上，都可以找出其一定程度的邏輯架構。那為什麼人民的期待無法反映在法官的判決上呢？本文以社會上數件重大刑案為例，從法官的角度及人民的觀點進行假設，就兩方的邏輯架構進行探討，並嘗試推導社會觀感與實際判決結果是否能形成最大公約數。並運用研究方法之比較法，從中比較不同法官在進行審判時，論處罪刑的假設性概念為何。希望藉由本文的探討論述能夠帶給社會與法官另一種模式的思考，並從中使相對性的他方能夠明瞭另方的邏輯建立在何種框架之上。

The first impression of Judges' thinking pattern coming to people's mind is bull-headed and inflexible. Due to the court decisions are always pole apart from people's expectations, Judges are shaped to be the stubborn ones getting on the high horse and born to privilege. However, the training of jurists stress stresses Speculative the most. Both Criminal Law and Civil Law based on ＂no penalty without a law＂ have logical structures to some extent. But why people's expectations are not consistent with Judges' decisions? The study takes some criminal cases to make the hypotheses from Judges' and people's perspectives, and discusses the logical structures from both sides. The author infers if there is an intersection between social perception and the real verdicts. Moreover, by applying comparative method, the author will compare the concepts of conviction from different Judges during the trials. The author expects the study can contribute itself to bring a different thinking pattern to the society and judges, and give both sides a better understanding of each other's perspectives built on what kind of logical structures.