法官们通过对“郁祝军与常州市武进区公安局交通巡逻警察大队交通行政处罚纠纷案”的审理,阐述了交通瞬时执法领域应当适用“警察证言优先”规则及例外,为今后类似的案件审理提供了参考。然而,“郁祝军案”的意义绝不止步于相关规则的确立。就方法论而言,我们既要关注新的规则确立的结果,又要关注新规则确立的过程。通过审视“郁祝军案”发现:法官在阐述适用“警察证言优先”的理由时,主要考虑了行政成本、行政效率等因素,同时倾向于使用利益衡量的论证方法,从而忽视了在法律范围内对该规则和例外进行法律论证的可能性。这样的做法一旦被推广,很容易向其他法官传递“判决要以结果为导向”的错误信息。因此,通过对“郁祝军案”判决过程的重新审视,告诉我们:法官在判决说理时,只要没有法律漏洞存在,其就应当尽可能地在法律内寻找判决依据,从而确保判决的可接受性和法律适用的统一。强调这一点,对于行政诉讼中的法官公正审判意义重大。 Judges passed the trial of “Administrative Dispute over Traffic in Traffic Patrol Police Brigade of Yuzhu Army and Changzhou Wujin District Public Security Bureau” to elaborate that the “police precepts prioritized” rules and exceptions should be applied in the field of instantaneous traffic law enforcement. The case hearing provides a reference. However, the meaning of “Yu Zhu Jun Case” goes beyond the establishment of relevant rules. In terms of methodology, we should not only pay attention to the results established by the new rules, but also pay attention to the process established by the new rules. By examining the case of Yuzhu Jun, the judge discovers that in explaining the reasons for applying “police testimony priority”, the judge mainly considers such factors as administrative costs and administrative efficiency, and at the same time prefers to use the demonstration of interest measurement, The possibility of legal argumentation of the rules and exceptions within the law. Once such an approach is promoted, it is easy to pass on to other judges the wrong message that “the judgment is result-oriented.” Therefore, by re-examining the judgment process of “Yuzhu Jun case ”, it tells us that when judges make decisions, as long as there is no legal loophole, they should try their best to find the basis for judgments within the law so as to ensure the acceptability of the judgments The unity of sex and applicable law. To emphasize this, it is of great significance to the fair trial of judges in administrative litigation.