Currently, WeChat has become an important means of communication for people, and online communication is becoming more and more convenient. In some cases, WeChat voice, chat records, etc. also frequently appear as evidence, and even the "facial expressions" posted during chatting may become "court evidence". How to use WeChat fixed evidence? What kind of chat records can be more easily accepted? The People's Court of Licheng District, Jinan City, Shandong Province has sorted out some cases involving WeChat evidence that the court has tried, reminding netizens to use WeChat to fix evidence, not just randomly cut two pictures. It is necessary to ensure the completeness of the evidence as much as possible, and to have factual basis on the premise of legal basis. Chat records should not be casually "processed" by scanning face-to-face with newly met friends. Adding WeChat to facilitate communication between partners is just as common. In real life, many offline transactions have also been moved online, and chat records have become the core evidence of litigation. So, how can such evidence be accepted by the court? How should the judge make a judgment if only providing evidence that is beneficial to oneself, deleting and concealing information? Cheng Xiao and Zheng Qi (legal representative of a certain company) have been WeChat friends for many years and have had business dealings with each other. In 2019, Cheng Xiao contacted Zheng Qi through WeChat and stated that he could now provide car milling, planing, and grinding machine services. He learned that Zheng Qi Company also had this business requirement and hoped to cooperate with him. Based on the previous cooperation foundation, and also being WeChat friends with Cheng Xiao for many years, Zheng Qi readily agreed out of trust, and the two sides quickly established a business cooperation intention. According to the requirements, all business dealings between Cheng Xiao and a certain company were conducted through WeChat with Zheng Qi and his company employees, and no contract was signed between the two parties. A certain company sends the relevant drawings and requirements for the production and processing of accessories to Cheng Xiao through WeChat. But Cheng Xiao stated that after processing the parts according to the other party's drawings and requirements, the company did not pay the processing fee and owed him more than 80000 yuan. Negotiations with the other party were unsuccessful, so he sued the court. "Both the plaintiff and the defendant provided a printed chat record with detailed transaction processes, but strangely, there was a significant discrepancy between the chat records of both parties, which did not match. The defendant stated that they did not require Cheng Xiao to do the follow-up parts, so there was no need to pay processing fees." Li Xiaoli, the President of the Civil Second Court of Licheng District Court, explained that Cheng Xiao submitted his self-made supply list and a large number of WeChat chat records as evidence. However, after comparing the chat records he provided with the WeChat chat records submitted by Zheng Qi, the judge found that the chat records were neither complete nor deleted, and multiple voice recordings were not transcribed. After verification, the real conversation has finally been restored. Originally, in order to conceal information that was detrimental to himself, Cheng Xiao deliberately deleted key information sent by the other party, such as "stop doing" and "cancel the order". In the chat records provided by both parties, it can be seen that the quantity, unit price, quality, performance period, acceptance standards, and other contents of the parts to be processed are not reflected. The defendant stated that after receiving the first batch of accessories, they found that the plaintiff's product quality could not meet their company's requirements. Therefore, after paying for the goods, they clearly stated that they would no longer cooperate. The WeChat chat records submitted by the defendant showed that they had repeatedly sent "no more" and "cancel the order" to the plaintiff