Abstract: The rules of illegal evidence exclusion and the rules of defective evidence correction are the important for judicial organs to safeguard judicial justice and prevent unjust， false or wrong cases. At present， the identification of illegal evidence and defective evidence in China has the characteristics that the application for exclusion of illegal evidence relies heavily on lawyers’ participation， the proportion of illegal evidence identification is low and is mainly based on verbal evidence， and the proportion of defective evidence identification is high and is mainly based on physical evidence. Such practice leads to problems， such as confusing the rules for exclusion of illegal evidence with the rules for correction of defective evidence， degrading illegal evidence due to the difficulty in determining “possible effect on fair trial”， and irregular ways for correction of defective evidence. In order to further improve the evidence system of criminal proceedings in China and safeguard judicial justice and social justice， we should clearly define the specific form， correction mode and scope of defective evidence， clarify the exclusion rules of certain evidence types， and at the same time give full play to the pre-trial filtering function of procuratorial organs to implement the substantive trial.

Key words: illegal evidence, defective evidence, illegal evidence collected, the rule for illegal evidence exclusion, the rule for defective evidence correction