刑事法中的“明知”，不仅是一个实体问题，也是一个程序问题，更与国家的刑事政策息息相关。我国对这一问题在理论上还没有深入研究，这也给司法实践带来了很多困扰，尤其在毒品犯罪中体现得十分明显。本文以此为选题，展开相关研究，主要内容如下：引言主要阐述了“明知”和严格责任的关系，指出英美法系的严格责任经历了从实体到程序的漫长过程，后期发展的严格责任实际上是一种过错推定责任，更多体现的是一种程序意义上的价值，与刑事法中的过错推定是殊途同归。鉴于英美法系严格责任本身内涵不清，争议太大，我们没有必要沿袭此路，而应该从过错推定的角度研究我国刑事法中的“明知”。第一章从“明知”的含义和性质等方面对其做了一个基本解读，认为刑事法中“明知”的内涵是不重要的，重要的是其外延，体现的是立法者根据惩罚的必要性，需要将何种行为纳入到犯罪圈，所以它关注的不是行为人实际上是否知道，而是根据法律的义务和当时特定的客观环境，法官判断行为人是否应该知道。明知在刑事法中的意义在于，对于一般的、记述性要素的明知是通过客观行为自然推断的，无需控方另行证明。对于特定要素的明知，是控方需要特别证明的事项，只是这种证明通常是通过刑事推定或推论的方法完成的。第二章是关于“明知”的认定问题，主要论述了刑事推定在认定明知方面的价值。认为推定的本质是改变了证明的对象，法定性是其另一本质特征。推定会引起证明责任的转移，但是转移的是何种责任，不能一概而论，必须考虑推定背后的政策因素，同时政策因素也决定了被告人反驳成立的证明标准。第三章首先指出我国明知推定立法方面的不足，比如：立法主体不合法、程序立法缺失、实体立法缺乏风险防范机制等，并提出相应的完善措施。同时指出，明知推定立法中，被告人反驳权的设置和完善是至关重要的，并提出了具体的建议。第四章选取了明知认定比较复杂的三类（个）罪名：毒品犯罪、奸淫幼女罪、赃物犯罪，作为具体研究的对象，以案例分析为主要方法，研究如何在个罪中认定被告人是否明知。

Abstract"Knowledge" is not only an issue concerned with substantial and procedural matters in the field of criminal law, but also an issue closely related to national criminal policy. Lacking of deep research in this field theoretically results in troubles in judicial practices, which has obvious embodiment in field of drug crime. This essay will expand research around this topic with contents as followed:The introduction mainly elaborates relationship between "knowledge" and strict liability, and points out that strict liability in common law system experienced a long course being deducted from substantial issue to procedural one, turning out to be presumption in reality during its development in later period and exert a value in procedural sense. Compared with criminal presumption, strict liability just realize same goal through different path. As to common law does not make clear expression on content of strict liability and its content is too controversial, so that we have not to follow their way and should research into "knowledge" in our criminal law through angel of presumption. Chapter one makes a basic explanation through content and nature of "knowledge", and concludes that in criminal law the content of "knowledge" is rather less important than its extent which embodies that legislators' will of including what kind of behavior into crimina circle according to necessity of punishment. Therefore, it mainly concerns whether a behavior should know concluded by judges according to legal liability and particular environment, instead of a behavior actually knows or not. The meaning of knowledge in criminal law lies in that, in general, knowledge with descriptive nature can be deduced through objective behavior and do not need proved by prosecution. While for knowledge of particular element, it is an issue need to be proved by prosecution, which is usually proved through criminal presumption. Chapter two is about identification of "knowledge". It mainly discusses the value of criminal presumption on identification of knowledge. I my opinion, essence of presumption is changing the objects of prove and have another character, that is, statutory. Presumption can lead to shift of proof burden, however, what kind of proof burden is shifted can not be concluded generally and policy behind must be considered, which directly determines whether defends by accused can be accepted. Chapter three first points out deficiency of legislation on knowledge, for example, illegal legislative subject, lack of legislation on procedure, without risk prevention system for substantial legislation, and proposes relevant perfection measure. Then points out that regulation and perfection of right to refutation by accused party is essential in legislation on knowledge and further makes concrete suggestion. Chapter four picks out 3 crimes, drug crimes, crime of defiling girls under 14 and booty crime, which are complicated in identification of knowledge, as object for research and mainly takes method of case study to differentiate how to identify the accused has knowledge in individual crime.