认罪认罚从宽案件的证明标准之探讨——基于对定罪事实与量刑事实的区分

A Discussion on the Standard of Proof of the Case of Confession and Punishment——Based on the Distinction Between Convicted Facts and Sentencing Facts

认罪认罚从宽案件的证明标准是否应当降低,已成为这一制度试点改革的一大难题,目前学界和实务界争论流派众多,令人莫衷一是。然而,作为证据确实、充分之标准的三个条件并未因被告人的认罪认罚而消失,在坚持实质真实原则的前提下,为避免"疑罪从轻"导致冤假错案,对定罪事实及不纯正的量刑事实之证明仍应坚持传统的证明标准,但证据的调查程序和证明规则可从简;而对于纯正的量刑事实证明之标准则可以适当降低,从而达到有的放矢、合理配置司法资源之目的。

Whether the standard of proof for leniency should be reduced has become a major problem in the pilot reform of the system. As the three necessary and sufficient conditions for which the evidence is reliable and sufficient standard do not disappear because of the defendant pleaded guilty to penalty. On the premise of adhering to the principle of real truth, in order to avoid that‘a suspected crime＇leads to miscarriages of justice and the facts of conviction and sentencing facts which are not pure, it should adhere to the‘standard of evidence is reliable and sufficient＇.However, evidence investigation procedure and proof rules can be simple and pure; for the standard of proof of sentencing facts can be reduced, which will be the main energy conversion to the voluntary confession trial review penalty to the defendant, optimize the allocation of resources.