论认罪认罚案件量刑建议的裁判拘束力及其保障——以刑事诉讼法第201条的解释为中心

Sentencing Recommendations in Cases of Leniency in Confession: A Discussion of Their Binding Forceand Guarantee by Focusing on the Interpretation of Article 201 of Criminal Procedure Law

刑事诉讼法第201条赋予了认罪认罚案件量刑建议在一定程度上的裁判拘束力。法院“一般应当采纳”量刑建议是履行法定从宽义务的要求,接受“修正的递进情形说”可以更好地处理第201条第1款和第2款的关系,从而明确厘清不予采纳量刑建议的例外情形。在认罪认罚从宽制度无差别地适用于所有类型案件的情况下,为维护量刑建议的裁判拘束力,检察院应当将轻罪案件作为确定刑量刑建议的主要空间,而在重罪案件中提出幅度刑量刑建议。“明显不当条款”应当被解释成为被告人利益而设置的,是对量刑建议裁判拘束力的进一步维护,“明显”不当要素的体系解释要求法院对量刑建议秉持“适度容错”的立场,量刑建议明显不当时的“调整程序”、被告人提出异议应当有理有据、法院履行适用“明显不当条款”时的特殊论证义务,可以有效防止法官对第2款的恣意适用。

Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law gives a certain degree of binding force to the judgment of sentencing recommendations in cases of Leniency in confession.That the court generally should generally adopt the sentencing recommendations is a requirement for fulfilling the statutory leniency obligation.Accepting the theory of modified progressive situation can better handle the relationship between Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 201,so as to make clear the exceptions to the inadmissibility of the sentencing recommendations.Under the circumstance where the leniency system applies to all types of cases indiscriminately,in order to maintain the binding force of the sentencing recommendations,the procuratorate should consider misdemeanor cases as the main space for determining the sentencing recommendations,and propose the recommendations concerning the range of sentencing in felony cases.The“manifestly improper clause”should be interpreted as being set for the benefit of the defendant,which is a further safeguard of the binding force of the sentencing recommendations,and the interpretation of the system of obviously improper elements requires the court to maintain a moderate tolerance for the faulty position on the sentencing recommendations.Such factors as adjustment procedure implemented when the sentencing recommendations is obviously inappropriate,the requirement that the defendant's objections should be justified,and the court's special duty of proof when applying the“obviously inappropriate clauses”can effectively prevent judges from arbitrarily applying paragraph 2.