This paper has comparatively analyzed four aspects of confession corroboration rule of the USA and Japan,they are the proof object、the evidence qualification、 the proof degree of corroborative evidence and the confession of codefendants.

Corroborative evidence is the evidence which enhances and guarantees the probative force of leading evidence and it proves indirectly the truth.

Failure to specify the detailed corroborative evidence for the confession of the defendant leads to the ambiguity in the procedural practice of judicature, and even to the obstruction of pursuing the desirable value of the rules of corroborative evidence.

The rules about degree exclusion and the reinforcement to evidences are created to compensate for defects in the judge\'s free evaluation of evidences.

The legal provision for evidence capability is based on the characteristic of a proof.

Does Identification of the conclusions have competency of evidence? If it has,how about its probative force? In this paper, through making some theoretical studies on the problem which is about competency of evidence of Identification of the conclusions and its probative force,the author hopes Identification of the conclusions will be practiced more correctly in litigation.

It is very necessary and urgent to establish the principles of affidavit as corroborating evidence.