论认罪认罚案件被告人上诉权及其限定

On Defendant's Right of Appeal and Its Limitations in Cases of Guilty Plea

在认罪认罚案件中,可将被告人上诉分为“违约性上诉”和“救济性上诉”:前者是被告人借由上诉来寻求生效控辩合意预期利益以外的其他利益;后者是被告人因一审裁判实体或程序错误而通过提出上诉寻求救济。救济性上诉在认罪认罚案件中有其必要性与正当性;违约性上诉不仅助长被告人投机心理,而且不利于认罪认罚从宽制度提高诉讼效率的立法目的。对违约性上诉的限定主要有“效力维持型”和“利益收回型”两种模式。在我国现行法律规定之下,“效力维持”模式并不具有可行性。我国司法机关在实践中自生自发探索“利益收回”的限定模式,主要是借由检察院抗诉并经二审改判收回被告人在认罪认罚中所获从宽利益;为防止“利益收回”模式中的回应性抗诉在司法实践中演变为报复性抗诉,应当对其设置必要程序限制。

In guilty plea cases,the defendant's appeals could be divided into“appeals of breach”and“appeals of remedy”.In the appeal of breach,defendant appeals to seek other interests beyond the effective agreement between prosecutor and him.In the appeal of remedy,defendant appeals to seek remedy for his rights infringed in entity or procedural errors by the lower court's decision.Appeal of remedy is necessary and justified in guilty plea cases,while appeal of breach may be opportunistic and harmful to achieving the purpose of guilty plea rules.There are two models of restrictions on appeal of breach which are“validity keeping”model and“leniency withdrawing”model.The model of validity keeping is not feasible under the criminal procedure law of China.Procuratorates in different regions of China have spontaneously explored the model of leniency withdrawing in practice.Procurator could lodge a protest and apply the court to withdraw lenient benefits gained by defendant in his guilty plea.To prevent responsive protest in leniency withdrawing model transformed into vindictive protest,it's necessary to set certain procedural restrictions on responsive protest.