發(fā)布時間：2018-06-16 23:28

  本文選題：再審程序 + 撤回起訴　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：河南一對農(nóng)村兄弟，在八個月內(nèi)瘋狂偷逃過路費(fèi)，一審認(rèn)定偷逃金額為360余萬元，被稱為“天價過路費(fèi)”，由此引起了民眾的廣泛關(guān)注。隨著哥哥時建峰翻供，案件啟動再審程序，理論界對于案件應(yīng)當(dāng)如何定性、如何量刑等問題，從法理學(xué)、刑法學(xué)的角度進(jìn)行了深入的分析。但是案件審理過程中，所體現(xiàn)出來的程序性問題卻沒有引起足夠的重視。撤回起訴是檢察機(jī)關(guān)行使自由裁量權(quán)的體現(xiàn)，現(xiàn)行法允許檢察機(jī)關(guān)撤回起訴，可是案件已經(jīng)做出生效判決，再審中檢察機(jī)關(guān)不能撤回起訴；再審是法律為已生效的案件提供的救濟(jì)程序，下級法院通過再審程序不能糾正上級法院的判決。本文以“天價過路費(fèi)案”為分析案例，從刑事訴訟法的角度分析檢察院再審撤訴的合法性以及魯山縣人民法院再審審理案件的合法性。 全文除前言及結(jié)語外，共分成四部分，共1萬7千字左右： 第一部分，案件的基本情況。河南“天價過路費(fèi)案”平頂山中級人民法院一審判處時建峰無期徒刑，后因案件認(rèn)定事實(shí)的證據(jù)發(fā)生重大變化，平頂山中級人民法院啟動再審程序，隨后，檢察院宣布撤回起訴案件被退回公安機(jī)關(guān)補(bǔ)充偵查。2011年12月15日案件由魯山縣人民法院公開開庭審理，最終案件主犯被判處七年有期徒刑。本案折射出許多程序性問題，平頂山市檢察院撤訴和魯山縣人民法院再審審理為文章分析的重點(diǎn)。 第二部分，案件主要程序性問題的分析。一是從撤回起訴的時間和撤回起訴的適用條件上分析，平頂山市檢察院撤回起訴不合法、不合理。我國現(xiàn)行法規(guī)定了撤回起訴時間為“一審法院判決宣告前”，再審程序中并無撤回起訴的規(guī)定；公訴的效力具有有限性，再審程序中不具備撤回起訴的基礎(chǔ)，同時審判權(quán)制約公訴權(quán)；即使檢察院撤回起訴，，原審生效裁判并不會失效，一方面，基于裁判的權(quán)威性，另一方面，撤回起訴是一種程序處理，不具有實(shí)體效力。二是分析魯山縣人民法院審理本案不合法、不合理。首先，下級法院不能擁有上級法院生效裁判案件的再審管轄權(quán)，不符合刑事法規(guī)范；實(shí)際上上剝奪了被告人的上訴權(quán)；原審裁判中的錯誤無法糾正；同時帶來下級法院對原審裁判難以處理的難題。其次，魯山縣人民法院的錯誤再審，導(dǎo)致一個案件存在兩個生效判決。不僅違反了訴訟法理，而且給案件帶來了難以執(zhí)行的問題，嚴(yán)重危害了法律的統(tǒng)一實(shí)施。 最后，下級法院再審判決不能夠?qū)股霞壏ㄔ旱纳袥Q，法院上下級之間為監(jiān)督關(guān)系，再審監(jiān)督為上級法院行使監(jiān)督權(quán)的重要途徑，監(jiān)督的結(jié)果是上級法院以再審判決否定下級法院的判決；下級人民法院級別低，若其再審判決可以推翻上級法院原審判決，不利于體現(xiàn)再審的慎重性，不利于維護(hù)司法的權(quán)威；上級法院的判決相比較下級法院的判決更能夠令人信服。 第三部分，案件分析的結(jié)論。本部分在前文分析的基礎(chǔ)上指出法院、檢察院應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循的程序。平頂山市中院已經(jīng)啟動再審程序，應(yīng)當(dāng)按照刑事訴訟法有關(guān)再審程序的規(guī)定對案件進(jìn)行審理即可；平頂山市檢察院面對案件證據(jù)可能發(fā)生的重大變化，可以選擇變更、追加起訴；魯山縣人民法院對于不在自己管轄范圍內(nèi)的案件，應(yīng)當(dāng)決定退回檢察機(jī)關(guān)。 第四部分，案件研究的啟示。本部分揭示和探討本案的研究分析對處理類似案件的指導(dǎo)意義以及相關(guān)法律法規(guī)的完善建議。司法活動要堅持法律效果和社會效果的統(tǒng)一；檢察院提起公訴、法院審理判決應(yīng)當(dāng)兼顧程序公正與實(shí)體公正；我國刑事訴訟法應(yīng)當(dāng)明確規(guī)定撤訴制度，同時完善司法解釋中撤回起訴制度的規(guī)定。
[Abstract]:A pair of rural brothers in Henan, who fled the road fee crazily within eight months, identified the amount of more than 360 yuan in the first instance, which is known as the "price passing fee", which has aroused widespread concern. With his brother building a peak, the case starts the retrial procedure, and the theorists have the question of how the case should be determined and how to measure the sentence, from the jurisprudence, In the course of the case, the procedural problems embodied in the case have not been paid enough attention. The withdrawal of the prosecution is the embodiment of the discretion of the procuratorial organ, and the current law allows the procuratorial organ to withdraw the prosecution, but the case has already made a verdict and the procuratorial organ can not be retrial. Retrial; retrial is the relief procedure provided by law for the cases that have come into force. The lower court can not correct the judgment of the superior court through the retrial procedure. This article analyses the case of "the bill of heaven price pass", and analyzes the legality of the Procuratorate's retrial and the retrial case of the people's Court of Lushan Mountain county from the angle of the criminal procedure law. The legitimacy of it.
In addition to the preface and conclusion, the paper is divided into four parts, 10 thousand and 7 words in total.
The first part, the basic situation of the case. The Henan intermediate people's court at the trial Office of the Pingdingshan intermediate people's court was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the evidence of the facts had changed greatly after the case, and the intermediate people's Court of Pingdingshan started the retrial procedure. After that, the procuratorate Xuan cloth withdrew the prosecution case and was returned to the public security organ to supplement the investigation.2. In December 15th, the case was opened by the people's Court of Lushan Mountain County in 011 years. The final criminal was sentenced to seven years in prison. The case reflected a number of procedural problems. The withdrawal of the Pingdingshan municipal procuratorate and the retrial of the people's Court of Lushan Mountain county were the key points of the article.
The second part, the analysis of the main procedural problems of the case. First, from the time of withdrawal of the prosecution and the applicable conditions of the withdrawal of the prosecution, the withdrawal of the prosecution of the Pingdingshan municipal procuratorate is unlawful and unreasonable. The validity of the public prosecution is limited, and the retrial procedure does not have the basis for the withdrawal of the prosecution. At the same time, the judicial power restricts the right of public prosecution; even if the procuratorate withdraws the prosecution, the referee will not fail, on the one hand, based on the authority of the referee, on the other hand, the withdrawal of the prosecution is a procedural treatment and does not have substantial effectiveness. Two is the analysis of the Lushan Mountain county. The people's court is not legal and unreasonable in hearing the case. First, the lower court can not have the jurisdiction of the retrial jurisdiction of a superior court, which does not conform to the code of criminal law; it is actually deprived of the right of appeal of the defendant; the mistakes in the original trial judge cannot be corrected; and it brings the difficult problem that the lower court is difficult to deal with the original adjudication. The second time, the wrong retrial of the people's court in Lushan Mountain County led to the existence of two effective judgments in a case, which not only violated the legal principle of the lawsuit, but also brought difficulties to the case, which seriously harmed the unified implementation of the law.
Finally, the retrial of the lower court will never be able to combat the effective judgment of the superior court, the court and the lower rank are the important way to supervise the relationship between the court and the lower level, and the supervision of the retrial is an important way for the superior court to exercise supervision. The result of the supervision is that the superior court will deny the lower court's judgment by retrial; the lower level of the people's court is low, and if it is retrial, it can be pushed forward. It is not conducive to reflect the prudence of the retrial and to protect the authority of the judiciary. The judgment of the superior court is more convincing than the lower court's judgment.
The third part, the conclusion of the case analysis. On the basis of the previous analysis, this part points out the procedure that the court and the procuratorate should follow. The central court of Pingdingshan has already started the retrial procedure, which should be tried in accordance with the provisions of the criminal procedure law related to the retrial procedure; the Pingdingshan municipal procuratorate is facing the possibility of the case of the case. In the case of big changes, we can choose to change and add additional charges; the people's Court of Lushan Mountain county should decide to return to the procuratorial organs for cases not within its jurisdiction.
The fourth part, the Enlightenment of the case study. This part reveals and discusses the significance of the study and analysis of the case to deal with similar cases and the improvement of relevant laws and regulations. Judicial activities should adhere to the unity of legal effect and social effect; procuratorate should bring public prosecution, the court trial judgment should take into account procedural justice and substantive justice; China's criminal procedure law should clearly stipulate the withdrawal system, while improving the rules for withdrawing prosecution in judicial interpretation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 顧永忠;劉瑩;;論撤回公訴的司法誤區(qū)與立法重構(gòu)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);2007年02期

2 魏虹;;賦權(quán)與規(guī)制:我國檢察機(jī)關(guān)撤回起訴制度之構(gòu)建[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2011年06期

3 龍宗智;;生效判決猶在 公訴焉能撤回——評“天價過路費(fèi)案”之公訴撤回[J];法學(xué);2011年03期

4 趙琳琳;;論公訴權(quán)的能量——以撤回起訴和再行起訴為研究對象[J];河北公安警察職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年03期

5 陳學(xué)權(quán);;論刑事訴訟中實(shí)體公正與程序公正的并重[J];法學(xué)評論;2013年04期

6 薛正儉;;我國刑事公訴撤回制度管見[J];中國檢察官;2010年19期

7 曾軍;楊毅偉;;淺析刑事訴訟程序回轉(zhuǎn)——以檢察機(jī)關(guān)撤回起訴權(quán)為視角[J];中國刑事法雜志;2009年12期

8 陳學(xué)權(quán);;對“以撤回公訴代替無罪判決”的憂與思[J];中國刑事法雜志;2010年01期

9 陳光中;;堅持程序公正與實(shí)體公正并重之我見——以刑事司法為視角[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年02期

10 張建偉;;論公訴之撤回及其效力[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年04期

本文編號：2028500