“河南天价过路费案”再审程序的刑事诉讼法分析

发布时间：2018-06-16 23:28

本文选题：再审程序 + 撤回起诉　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：河南一对农村兄弟，在八个月内疯狂偷逃过路费，一审认定偷逃金额为360余万元，被称为“天价过路费”，由此引起了民众的广泛关注。随着哥哥时建峰翻供，案件启动再审程序，理论界对于案件应当如何定性、如何量刑等问题，从法理学、刑法学的角度进行了深入的分析。但是案件审理过程中，所体现出来的程序性问题却没有引起足够的重视。撤回起诉是检察机关行使自由裁量权的体现，现行法允许检察机关撤回起诉，可是案件已经做出生效判决，再审中检察机关不能撤回起诉；再审是法律为已生效的案件提供的救济程序，下级法院通过再审程序不能纠正上级法院的判决。本文以“天价过路费案”为分析案例，从刑事诉讼法的角度分析检察院再审撤诉的合法性以及鲁山县人民法院再审审理案件的合法性。全文除前言及结语外，共分成四部分，共1万7千字左右：第一部分，案件的基本情况。河南“天价过路费案”平顶山中级人民法院一审判处时建峰无期徒刑，后因案件认定事实的证据发生重大变化，平顶山中级人民法院启动再审程序，随后，检察院宣布撤回起诉案件被退回公安机关补充侦查。2011年12月15日案件由鲁山县人民法院公开开庭审理，最终案件主犯被判处七年有期徒刑。本案折射出许多程序性问题，平顶山市检察院撤诉和鲁山县人民法院再审审理为文章分析的重点。第二部分，案件主要程序性问题的分析。一是从撤回起诉的时间和撤回起诉的适用条件上分析，平顶山市检察院撤回起诉不合法、不合理。我国现行法规定了撤回起诉时间为“一审法院判决宣告前”，再审程序中并无撤回起诉的规定；公诉的效力具有有限性，再审程序中不具备撤回起诉的基础，同时审判权制约公诉权；即使检察院撤回起诉，，原审生效裁判并不会失效，一方面，基于裁判的权威性，另一方面，撤回起诉是一种程序处理，不具有实体效力。二是分析鲁山县人民法院审理本案不合法、不合理。首先，下级法院不能拥有上级法院生效裁判案件的再审管辖权，不符合刑事法规范；实际上上剥夺了被告人的上诉权；原审裁判中的错误无法纠正；同时带来下级法院对原审裁判难以处理的难题。其次，鲁山县人民法院的错误再审，导致一个案件存在两个生效判决。不仅违反了诉讼法理，而且给案件带来了难以执行的问题，严重危害了法律的统一实施。最后，下级法院再审判决不能够对抗上级法院的生效判决，法院上下级之间为监督关系，再审监督为上级法院行使监督权的重要途径，监督的结果是上级法院以再审判决否定下级法院的判决；下级人民法院级别低，若其再审判决可以推翻上级法院原审判决，不利于体现再审的慎重性，不利于维护司法的权威；上级法院的判决相比较下级法院的判决更能够令人信服。第三部分，案件分析的结论。本部分在前文分析的基础上指出法院、检察院应当遵循的程序。平顶山市中院已经启动再审程序，应当按照刑事诉讼法有关再审程序的规定对案件进行审理即可；平顶山市检察院面对案件证据可能发生的重大变化，可以选择变更、追加起诉；鲁山县人民法院对于不在自己管辖范围内的案件，应当决定退回检察机关。第四部分，案件研究的启示。本部分揭示和探讨本案的研究分析对处理类似案件的指导意义以及相关法律法规的完善建议。司法活动要坚持法律效果和社会效果的统一；检察院提起公诉、法院审理判决应当兼顾程序公正与实体公正；我国刑事诉讼法应当明确规定撤诉制度，同时完善司法解释中撤回起诉制度的规定。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】