The statistical analysis of 303，256 judgment documents of intentional injury shows that the judgment of fixedterm imprisonment for intentional injury is highly standardized.In practice，the judge’s sentencing method follows the theoretical core of the“threestep”method.The determination of the starting point of sentencing and the benchmark penalty is highly consistent with the norms，merely the application of only a few circumstances conflicts with the norms.The rigorous normative system，the need for judges to avoid decision risk，and the twoway conformity of practice with norms provides the prerequisite，motivation，and realization path for the highly standardized sentencing.However，under the premise that norms may not be correct，highly standardized sentencing may instead lead to the repetition of errors and atrophy of experience.Based on the current high level of standardization，the next stage of sentencing reform should timely turn from formally legal standardization to substantially legitimate standardization by establishing a sentencing legitimacy evaluation system，from mechanical standardization to initiative standardization by defining，maintaining and strengthening a dual rule system constructed by both sentencing norms and experience.