With the rapid development of LLMs, increasing attention has been paid to whether they can reliably generate complete and legally valid judicial documents. This calls for a benchmark capable of evaluating whether models can accurately apply statutes and resolve outcome-critical issues, including claims, charges, penalties, and monetary obligations. However, existing benchmarks typically focus on isolated legal tasks or coarse-grained evaluation. We introduce ChJGBench, a benchmark for generating the reasoning and dispositive sections of Chinese judgments across civil, criminal, and administrative cases. Built from 3,462 real-world judgments, ChJGBench provides a case-type-aware diagnostic evaluation framework comprising 13 metric types and adopts a hybrid paradigm. Experiments reveal no uniform advantage for legal-domain models over general-purpose models, with model strengths varying across diagnostic dimensions. Performance is generally stronger on criminal cases, while civil and administrative cases continue to present substantial challenges.