analogical-reasoning

First confirm a genuine legal gap exists through exhaustive statutory search, then select the most similar source norm or case, build a similarity comparison table, and justify the analogy through normative purpose, equality, and systemic coherence arguments.

The tertium comparationis is the legally significant similarity shared between the pending case and the reference norm or case. It must relate to the purpose (ratio legis) of the reference norm, not merely superficial factual resemblance.

Analogy is strictly prohibited against the defendant in criminal conviction and sentencing under the principle of legality, and in tax liability elements under statutory taxation. Analogy favorable to a criminal defendant is theoretically permissible but requires special justification.

Extensive interpretation stays within the possible semantic range of the statutory text, while analogical reasoning extends a norm beyond its textual meaning to cover unregulated similar situations. Confusing the two can improperly evade analogy restrictions.

Confidence uses a five-star scale based on judicial support, scholarly consensus, strength of the similarity basis, and materiality of differences. Existing guiding cases or judicial interpretations raise confidence; significant differences or doctrinal controversy lower it.

Yes. Guiding cases carry a 'should be referenced' effect, so similar pending cases should follow their adjudication points. The analysis must compare key facts underlying the adjudication point and justify any departure through distinguishing techniques.