[3] Compiled from: China Court Network, Hangzhou Network
 
[4] "If I had known it would turn out like this, I wouldn't have caused trouble." Recently, after receiving the second-instance verdict from the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court in Zhejiang, Sheng regretted deeply. Earlier, Sheng had received a lighter sentence from the first-instance court through the leniency system for pleading guilty and accepting punishment, but later changed his mind. Thinking that "appealing would not increase the sentence," he filed an appeal. Unexpectedly, the prosecutor's counter-appeal added two months to his sentence.

 
[2] Case Review
[5] From June 25 to November 25, 2018, Sheng repeatedly went to Fuxi Street in Tiantai County, stealing items from cars by pulling on car doors. He stole 2,100 yuan in cash, a motorcycle, a mobile phone, and cigarettes. The motorcycle was valued at 400 yuan, and the soft-pack Blue Liqun cigarettes at 140 yuan.
 
[6] On January 28 this year, the public security authorities transferred Sheng to the Tiantai County Court for prosecution on suspicion of theft. After review, the court found that Sheng had truthfully confessed his crimes and should be subject to the leniency system for pleading guilty and accepting punishment. With a duty lawyer present, Sheng voluntarily signed the notification and the plea agreement. He also accepted the prosecutor's sentencing recommendation of "imprisonment of less than eleven months and a fine," considering factors like his recidivism, and the applicable procedures.
 
On March 1, the Tiantai County Court tried Sheng's theft case under the leniency system for guilty pleas and acceptance of punishment, adopted the procuratorate's sentencing recommendation, and sentenced Sheng to 11 months in prison with a fine of 4,000 yuan for theft.
 
On March 8, Sheng appealed to the Taizhou Intermediate Court. After learning of Sheng's appeal, the Tiantai County Court filed a protest in accordance with the law. The Tiantai County People's Court protested that, because the leniency system for guilty pleas and acceptance of punishment was applied in the first instance, the defendant Sheng received a lighter sentence. Now, by appealing using the principle of no additional punishment on appeal, he shows he is not genuinely admitting guilt and accepting punishment, violating his earlier commitment to accept punishment. Therefore, the leniency system should no longer apply. The law applied in the first-instance judgment was erroneous, so a revised judgment was requested. Subsequently, the court submitted documents including the notification of the leniency system, the plea agreement, and the decision to apply the leniency system. The attending prosecutor also supported the protest on the same grounds.
 
After learning of the court's protest, Sheng reconsidered and ultimately felt that his appeal was "not worth it," fearing he might end up worse off. On March 19, he applied to withdraw his appeal.
 
On June 6, the Taizhou Intermediate Court issued a judgment, adopting the Tiantai County Court's protest reasoning, and determined that the defendant Sheng's appeal against the original sentence indicated he no longer accepted punishment, and his withdrawal application was motivated by fear of a heavier sentence. Therefore, the leniency system for guilty pleas and acceptance of punishment should no longer apply, and the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal was not permitted by law.
 
Accordingly, the court decided to revoke the sentencing portion of the original judgment, uphold the conviction and other parts, and change the sentence to one year and one month in prison with a fine of 4,000 yuan.
 
 
What is the principle of no additional punishment on appeal?
The principle of no additional punishment upon appeal means that when the second-instance people's court tries a case appealed by the defendant, it cannot increase the defendant's penalty for any reason. Its specific meanings are:
 
1. Appeal is the defendant's legal right. Regardless of whether the grounds for appeal are valid, the original sentence cannot be increased in the second-instance judgment due to the defendant's dissatisfaction with the verdict or poor attitude.
 
2. In a case appealed only by the defendant, if the second-instance court confirms after trial that a modification of the judgment should be made according to Article 236, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, it must not increase the defendant's penalty, even if the original sentence was lenient.
 
3. In a case appealed only by the defendant, if the second-instance court confirms after trial that a direct modification or remand for retrial should be made according to Article 236, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law, after the facts are clarified, if the facts determined in the original judgment are not changed, the defendant's penalty should not be increased. Additionally, the second-instance court cannot use unclear facts or insufficient evidence as a pretext to remand a case that is merely too lenient in sentencing, instructing the first-instance court to increase the defendant's penalty.

 
[1] Court Opinion
The court holds that the appellant Sheng, with the intent of illegal possession, repeatedly stole others' property in significant amounts, constituting the crime of theft. The appellant had previously been sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment multiple times for theft crimes, and despite repeated education, he intentionally committed another crime within five years after completing his sentence, making him a recidivist who should be punished severely according to law.
 
The original judgment, considering that the appellant Sheng admitted guilt and accepted punishment, and that the procuratorial authority's sentencing recommendation was appropriate, adopted the recommendation and granted leniency. Now, the appellant Sheng has appealed the original sentence, indicating a breach of his commitment and refusal to accept punishment. His request to withdraw the appeal is also due to fear of increased punishment. Therefore, the leniency system for admitting guilt and accepting punishment should no longer apply. Thus, the grounds for protest and the opinions presented in court are valid, and this court adopts them. The request for modification of the judgment is supported, and the appellant's application to withdraw the appeal is not permitted according to law. The original judgment's conviction and application of law are accurate, and the trial procedure is lawful.

 

 
[1] The author's perspective
How to handle cases where a criminal suspect or defendant retracts their confession and acceptance of punishment after initially agreeing is a "special institutional dilemma" that must be addressed in the application of the leniency system for confession and acceptance of punishment.
 
In this regard, it should first be clarified that criminal suspects or defendants have the right to retract and withdraw their confession and acceptance of punishment commitments. Generally, under the leniency system for confession and acceptance of punishment, when a criminal suspect or defendant voluntarily confesses and accepts punishment and signs a recognizance based on an agreement reached with the prosecuting authority, it essentially constitutes a mutual agreement between the individual and the prosecuting authority. According to the spirit of contract, both the prosecution and the defense should be bound by the content of the agreement and obligated to facilitate its implementation. However, the binding force of this agreement differs for the two parties. For the prosecuting authority, which represents public power, the binding force is far greater than for the individual defendant. Specifically, the prosecuting authority generally cannot revoke the agreement unless the defendant first fails to fulfill the commitments made in the recognizance, or there are significant changes in the facts or circumstances on which the recognizance was based. In contrast, the defendant may retract their confession at any time before the court renders a judgment. The defendant can revoke the recognizance at any time before the conclusion of the court proceedings, while the prosecuting authority may only apply to revoke the agreement if it proves that the defendant has violated the negotiated agreement. The court must be bound by this and proceed with a separate trial.
 
Of course, during the trial phase, after retracting their confession, the defendant may re-confess and accept punishment based on a full understanding of their rights and the potential legal consequences of confession and acceptance of punishment, thereby continuing to apply the leniency system. Alternatively, they may choose not to apply the leniency system due to their retraction. After the court renders a judgment, if the defendant discovers that they confessed and accepted punishment based on a mistaken understanding, they may file an appeal in accordance with the law or petition the people's court or the people's procuratorate.
 
Thus, there are various scenarios in which a criminal suspect or defendant retracts their confession and acceptance of punishment after initially agreeing. In terms of the stage of retraction, it may occur before prosecution or during trial. In terms of the type of retraction, it may happen after the prosecuting authority has made a decision not to prosecute or after the court has rendered a judgment. Therefore, how to handle the retraction of confession and acceptance of punishment by a criminal suspect or defendant should be determined based on the specific circumstances.
 
The law not only has a punitive function but also serves an educational and guiding role. The "leniency system for confession and acceptance of punishment" in criminal law is an "opportunity" given to criminal suspects who sometimes show signs of remorse. The law is strict but also possesses a degree of tolerance; those who do wrong should bear the consequences rather than cleverly challenging the authority of the law.