Zhang said that he had paid Chen nine 10000 yuan, and showed a copy of the voucher, which said that "Zhang and Chen have (should have been crossed out) failed to correct any economic and industrial problems since today", and the signature was: "Chen  06 year twenty-two (changed to twelve ）Month thirty-four (changed to fourteen ）Day ". The above contents, including the traces of changes, are formed by copying, but there are handprints on the signature name and date. Chen explained that the original of the voucher was written under the pressure of Zhang, and the wrong words and date on the voucher were deliberately wrong. Because the content was unclear, it could not prove that Zhang had paid it nine Ten thousand yuan, so there was no alarm afterwards; The change on the voucher was made by Zhang; The two handprints may have been pressed by Zhang while he was asleep.

　　 After the first, second and retrial, Court judgment: Chen was rejected so-and-so Claims. Chen so-and-so If not satisfied, appeal to the procuratorial organ. The procuratorial organ shall lodge a protest according to law after examination. The retrial court ruled that the original judgment should be rescinded and remanded for retrial. After retrial, the court finally changed the judgment: Payment by Mr. Zhang Chen so-and-so Compensation nine Ten thousand yuan.

　　 This case mainly involves the judgment of the evidence effect of altered photocopies. basis Article 69 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedure stipulates that "photocopies and reproductions that cannot be checked with the original and the original cannot be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case alone", Zhang so-and-so Provided by so-and-so The copy of the handwritten voucher cannot be found to check with the original It shall be taken as the basis for determining the facts of the case separately. For the defects existing in the voucher, Zhang so-and-so As the holder of the voucher and the person responsible for providing evidence, he has the burden of providing evidence to eliminate defects so-and-so If no evidence is adduced to prove it, he should bear the consequences of failure to adduce evidence.