【作者】 白雪；

【导师】 马静华；

【作者基本信息】 四川大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 认罪认罚从宽制度作为刑事诉讼法的基本原则和制度,以宽严相济刑事政策作为指引,正式确立在2018年新修改的《刑事诉讼法》中,被赋予真正化解社会矛盾、实现案件繁简分流、有效节约司法资源的价值期待。刑事二审抗诉在认罪认罚案件中对于上述价值功能的有效实现具有重要影响,本文基于认罪认罚从宽的制度框架,以检察机关抗诉权合法性和正当性理论研究为前提,分析研究我国实务中认罪认罚案件二审抗诉的基本情况和存在的问题,试图明确影响认罪认罚案件中抗诉权行使的关键因素并提出对策建议规制检察机关行使二审抗诉权,提升检察机关适用认罪认罚制度的实务效果,推动认罪认罚从宽制度的功能实现。本文包括三部分,分别是导论、正文、结语。导论部分首先介绍了认罪认罚从宽制度的发展沿革和制度现状,其次是本文的文献综述,最后是关于本文的研究方法介绍。正文第一部分研究刑事抗诉理论。宪法赋予检察机关法律监督者的地位,检察机关通过行使抗诉权防止对认罪认罚制度的滥用、依法监督审判机关的司法活动、保障当事人的合法权益。检察机关不管是在普通案件,又或者是认罪认罚案件,都有权力和责任通过抗诉维护司法公正,确保法律的正确统一实施。第二部分分析了立法后二审抗诉的认罪认罚案件,从抗诉的整体情况、抗诉理由、抗诉结果等方面进行统计,数据分析表明在认罪认罚案件中,被告人上诉和量刑建议未被适用是检察机关抗诉的主要理由,这两类抗诉占到全部认罪认罚抗诉案件近90%,数量远超事实及法律适用错误的抗诉。针对上诉的抗诉,在保障被告人上诉权的前提下需区分是正当上诉还是技术性上诉。目前针对技术性上诉检察机关盲目抗诉有“滥用”抗诉权之嫌。而针对未采纳量刑建议这一抗诉理由,不同二审法院的裁判结果差异较大,实务差异反映出法检对于量刑建议效力和采纳程序的认识不同,一方面是立法缺失的重要表现,另一方面体现出法检两家就刑罚裁量的分歧。第三部分是针对现状和问题提出针对性的解决方案。第一,在认罪认罚案件中有限制抗诉权行使的必要。“无差别抗诉”对于上诉的被告人有威慑力,无法有效保障被告人的诉讼权力,不利于被告人自愿认罪认罚;不必要的抗诉增加法院和检察院的工作量,有悖于制度设计初衷。第二,增强认罪认罚案件抗诉合理性的相关建议。一方面要加强刑事抗诉必要性审查,审查抗诉理由和抗诉意见,既要达到认罪认罚案件的抗诉标准,又要有抗诉的必要,保障抗诉权的严肃性;另一方面要限制针对技术性上诉的抗诉,法律不禁止被告人存在侥幸心理,一审裁判已正确评价被告人的犯罪行为,此时抗诉达不到“确有错误”的抗诉前提。第三,为使检察机关更加规范、合理的行使抗诉权,完善相关配套措施。加强对认罪认罚的风险释明义务降低被告人反悔的可能性、完善不采纳量刑建议的司法程序使检察机关提起抗诉有理有据、通过统一对认罪认罚从宽制度的认识缓解法检对抗减少不必要的抗诉、制定合理的认罪认罚案件考核标准规范行使抗诉权。针对检察机关抗诉权行使的现有研究虽然较为全面,但也存在不足,即对抗诉权的关注不够。现有关于抗诉权的研究都是作为研究上诉权或量刑建议的辅助内容,缺少紧紧围绕抗诉权行使的讨论。现有争论的焦点聚焦失偏,对于检察机关行使抗诉权的理由分类不存在较大争议,但是讨论的重点都是关于保障被告人上诉权、提升量刑建议适用,没有真正站在检察机关行使抗诉权的程序审查和抗诉标准出发考虑。因此,围绕我国认罪认罚案件抗诉现状设计一套关于适用认罪认罚从宽制度的抗诉权行使规范、审查程序、抗诉效果评价标准的配套制度非常有必要。更多还原

【Abstract】 The system of plea guilty and punished leniency was formally established as a criminal procedure principle and system in the revised Criminal Procedure Law in2018.Based on the implementation of the criminal policy of combining leniency and strictness,the system is given to truly resolve social contradictions and realize the value expectation of diverting complicated cases from simple cases and effectively saving judicial resources.Criminal second-instance protests have an important impact on the effective realization of the above-mentioned value functions in cases of confessing guilt and confessing punishment.In the context of the system of confessing guilt and admitting punishment,this article takes the legality and legitimacy of the prosecutor’s right to protest as the premise to analyze and study our country’s practice.The basic situation and existing problems of the second-instance protest in cases of confession and punishment.In the context of the system of lenient admission of guilt and punishment,this article is based on theoretical research on the legality and legitimacy of the Prosecutor’s right to protest,and then analyzes and studies the basic situation and existing problems of the second-instance protest in cases of confession and punishment in my country’s practice,and finally clearly affects confession the key factors in the exercise of the right to protest in the case,Put forward countermeasures and suggestions to regulate the acts of the procurators that exercise the right to protest in the second instance,and Promote the effective operation and function realization of the leniency system.This article consists of three parts,namely introduction,body,and conclusion.The introduction part first introduces the evolution and current status of the system of plea guilty and punishing leniency,secondly discusses the literature review and research value of this article,and finally introduces the research method of this article.The first part of the text studies the theory of criminal protest.The Constitution gives the procuratorial orga the status of legal supervisor.The procuratorial organ prevents abuse of the confession system by exercising the power of protest,supervises the judicial activities of the judicial organs in accordance with the law,and protects the legal rights of the parties.Regardless of whether it is a guilty plea or an ordinary case,the procuratorial organ has the power and responsibility to maintain judicial justice through protests and ensure the correct and uniform implementation of the law.The second part analyzes the cases of confession of guilt and punishment in the second-instance protest after the legislation,and statistics from the overall situation of the protest,the reasons for the protest,and the results of the protest.The analysis found that in guilty pleas and punishment cases,the procuratorial organs mainly filed protests against the defendant’s appeal and sentencing recommendations were not adopted.These two types of protests accounted for nearly 90% of all protest cases,and the number far exceeded the facts and the incorrect application of the law.For protests against appeals,it is necessary to distinguish between legitimate appeals and technical appeals on the premise of protecting the defendant’s right to appeal.At present,the procuratorial organs blindly protest against technical appeals are suspected of "abusing" the right to protest.For the reason for not adopting the sentencing recommendation,the judgment results of different courts of second instance vary greatly.The difference in practice is reflected in the different understandings of the legal prosecutors on the effectiveness of the sentencing recommendations and the adoption procedures.On the one hand,it is an important manifestation of the lack of legislation,and on the other hand,it reflects the differences between the two legal prosecutors on the penalty judgments.The third part is to propose targeted solutions to the current situation and problems.First,it is necessary to restrict the exercise of the right to protest in cases of confession and punishment."Undifferentiated protest" has a deterrent effect on the defendant who appeals,cannot effectively protect the defendant’s litigation power,and is not conducive to the defendant’s voluntary confession of guilt and punishment,and unnecessary protests increase the workload of courts and procuratorates,contrary to the original intention of the system design.Second,relevant suggestions to enhance the reasonableness of protests in cases of confession and punishment.On the one hand,it is necessary to strengthen the review of the necessity of criminal protest,review the reasons and opinions of the protest,and not only meet the protest standards of guilty pleas and punishment cases,but also the necessity of protest,and guarantee the seriousness of the right to protest;On the other hand,it is necessary to limit protests against technical appeals.The law does not prohibit the defendant from fluke.The first-instance judge has correctly evaluated the defendant’s criminal behavior.At this time,the protest does not meet the premise of “definitely wrong”.Third,in order to enable procuratorial organs to exercise their right of protest in a more standardized and reasonable manner,improve relevant supporting measures.Strengthen the obligation to clarify the risks of confessing guilty and punishing,reduce the possibility of the defendant’s remorse,improve the judicial procedures for not adopting sentencing recommendations,make the prosecutors’ protests justified and well-founded,alleviate the unification of legal and prosecution confrontation,and reduce the need for understanding of the leniency system for confession and punishment.The right to protest,formulate reasonable assessment standards for confessing guilt and punishing cases and regulate the exercise of the right to protest.Although the research on the exercise of the right of protest by the procuratorial agency is relatively comprehensive,there are still shortcomings,that is,insufficient attention has been paid to the right of protest.Existing research on the right to protest is used as a supplement to the research on the right of appeal or sentencing recommendations,and there is a lack of discussions that closely focus on the exercise of the right to protest.The focus of the existing controversy is out of focus.There is no major controversy over the classification of the reasons for the procuratorial authority to exercise the right to protest,but the focus of the discussion is to protect the defendant’s right to appeal and to improve the application of sentencing recommendations.It does not really consider the procedural review and protest standards of the prosecutor’s exercise of the right to protest.Therefore,it is very necessary to design a set of supporting systems on the exercise of the right to protest,review procedures,and evaluation criteria for the effectiveness of the protest.更多还原