認罪認罰案件中的程序性信賴利益及其保護

為應對《刑事訴訟法》第201條的理論分歧，相對合理的方案是引入信賴保護理論以改造“約束論”。在認罪認罰案件中，被追訴人基於對國家司法權的信賴作出了認罪認罰，由此產生的合理期待可稱為程序性信賴利益。作為一種過程性利益，程序性信賴利益來源於對程序性權利的處分，能夠產生對國家司法權的程序性約束力，但受到公共利益、法官的獨立審判權和認罪認罰裁量從寬原則的限制。第201條體現了對程序性信賴利益的保護:第1款規定約束力的產生，適用時應融入信賴利益的認定，將“一般應當採納”理解為宣示性條款，結合信賴利益不成立及需保護性缺失的情形適用但書;第2款規定約束力的解除，適用“明顯不當”應當對接裁量從寬原則，將“調整量刑建議”視為原則性後果，除非信賴利益被主動放棄。對約束力條款的完善應貫徹保護性邏輯，重點關注約束力解除後的特殊保護。

To address the theoretical controversies surrounding Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law, a relatively sound approach is to introduce reliance protection theory to reform the so-called“constraint theory”. In cases involving guilty pleas and acceptance of punishment, the accused enters a plea based on reliance on the exercise of state judicial power. The reasonable expectations thereby generated may be characterized as procedural reliance interests. As a form of process-based interest, procedural reliance interests arise from the disposition of procedural rights. They are capable of generating procedural constraints on state judicial power, but remain subject to limitations stemming from public interests, the judge's independent adjudicatory authority, and the discretionary leniency principle underlying guilty plea and punishment acceptance. Article 201 embodies protection of procedural reliance interests. Paragraph 1 concerns the formation of binding force. In its application, the identification of reliance interests should be incorporated: the phrase“generally shall be adopted”should be understood as a declaratory clause, while the proviso should be applied in conjunction with circumstances in which reliance interests are not established or lack protectability. Paragraph 2 concerns the release of binding force. The determination of“manifest impropriety”should be aligned with the discretionary leniency principle, and“adjustment of the sentencing recommendation”should be treated as the default consequence, unless the reliance interest has been voluntarily waived. Improvements to the binding-force provisions should consistently follow a protective logic, with particular attention given to the special safeguards required after the binding force has been lifted.