Abstract:  The ontology of judicial proof mainly tackles two major problems: nature and means. The nature of judicial proof，mathematical or non-mathematical，atomic or holistic， scientific or humanistic，has always been disputed. The means of the disputes are reflected in two approaches: pursuing visible proof and maintaining vague proof. Regarding the pursuit of visual judicial proof，it cannot be achieved in a short time due to the dual constraints of technology and ethics despite continuous progress from Bentham's thermometer of persuasion to Wigmore's chart method，to the probability theory and to today's artificial intelligence algorithms. Given that the vague state of judicial proof will continue for a long time，the justification of vague proof has become a problem calling for urgent solution. The justification of judicial proof must attend to both the interests of the parties and the fairness and justice of the society. Therefore，an integrated approach of atomicism and holism is adopted. The individualized test of the specific evidence is centered on the parties concerned，and the coherence test of the overall evidence is centered on the judge. In this way，the process and results of judicial proof can be accepted by both parties and generally recognized by the whole society.

Key words: the nature of judicial proof, visualization, justification, individualized test, coherence test