The system of accountability for wrongful convictions and the system of selecting the post of judges at each level are two important judicial systems closely related to the second-instance final adjudication system. These two systems can obtain their legal legitimacy and due institutional claims from the legal propositions embedded in the second-instance final adjudication system. From purely theoretical logical deduction, the second-instance final adjudication system implies the following two basic legal propositions: Firstly, the judge of the first instance is allowed to decide the wrong case based on his professional judgment and the judge of the first instance is exempted from the responsibility of deciding the wrong case based on his professional judgment. This proposition embodies a moderate tolerance for the judge’s professional discretion, and has important theoretical value and practical significance for safeguarding the judge’s enthusiasm and initiative in adjudication and cultivating the judge’s judicial conscience. Its legitimacy stems from the professionalism of legal interpretation and legal application, the value of judicial adjudication, and the non-selectivity of judges’ adjudication;Secondly, the professionalism of judges of the second trial is in principle higher than that of judges of the first trial. The proposition embodies the justice of judicial procedure, which is an important guarantee for the construction of the rule of law and judicial justice, as well as the basis for ensuring judicial justice and authority, and a necessary condition for realizing the uniform application of the law and the correct judicial orientation. Its legitimacy stems from the professional competence requirements of the judges of the second instance, the functional orientation of the courts of the second instance, and the stronger anti-intervention capacity of the judges of the second instance. These two legal propositions, each has its own internal theoretical logic and value orientation. The legal proposition of “allowing the judge of the first instance to decide wrong cases based on professional judgment” can provide a basis for the formal judgment standard of “wrong decision (wrong case)”, the substantive judgment standard of “based on professional judgment”, the form of responsibility and the form of exemption from responsibility, and the value orientation of the judge of the second instance. Criteria, exemption from liability and the specific circumstances of the form of responsibility to provide value guidance;legal proposition “the second instance judge’s professionalism is in principle higher than that of the judge of the first instance”, for the second instance judge to have a higher professional theoretical and practical quality, to provide the value of the rationality of the judgment, and for the improvement of the system of selecting the post of judges by the gradual selection system to provide a system that can withstand the jurisprudential reasoning. Improvement of the path. Further, by analyzing the discrepancy between the contingent system demand and system practice of the pursuit of judges’ wrongdoing and selecting the post of judges at each level, it can be found that the existing system in the pursuit of judges’ responsibility for wrongdoing of the exemption from responsibility determination standard, the post of judges gradual selection standard and its scope of application, the relevant legal norms effect level and systematic, etc., there still exists the space for further improvement and improvement. Based on this, this paper puts forward the following system improvement suggestions: improve the judge accountability and responsibility exemption normative system;construction of “based on professional judgment” of the judge responsibility exemption supplemental determination standard;in the legislation on strict distinction between political responsibility, legal responsibility and management responsibility;unified post of judge level by level selection of the scope of the selection and the establishment of a relatively unified selection standards. Selection standards. Generally speaking, the research results of this paper can provide the legal justification for the system of investigating wrongful cases and the system of selecting the post of judges at each level, and respond to the specific challenges raised by the innovation of judicial practice and the related doctrinal controversy, which has important theoretical value and practical significance.