认罪认罚从宽制度是在刑事案件数量持续增长，轻罪案件占比明显加重，办案机关案多人少矛盾日益突出的背景下应运而生的，其目的是提高刑事诉讼的效率，优化司法资源的配置。近年来，通过司法实务界和学界的不断探索，认罪认罚从宽制度从青涩逐步走向成熟，对其聚焦的目光也随着刑事案件诉讼程序的不断推进，从对审查起诉阶段的关注转移到对法院审理阶段的关注，从而使得有关认罪认罚案件检察机关抗诉权限问题的讨论愈演愈烈。若检察机关行使抗诉权限的范围过大，则不利于被告人上诉权的保障，有司法霸凌之嫌，同时也会造成司法资源的浪费，违背了认罪认罚从宽制度设立的初衷；若检察机关行使抗诉权限的范围过窄，则阻碍了检察机关行使刑事监督职能的权利，不利于维护司法公正。 结合作者搜集到的74个北京地区认罪认罚抗诉案例，作者对检察机关认罪认罚抗诉案件的类型进行了归纳和分析。大体可以归纳为三种类型，即因被告人上诉而提起的抗诉；因量刑建议未被采纳而提起的抗诉以及基于事实认定和适用法律上的其他错误提起的抗诉。通过对上述数据的分析，作者发现，不同的检察机关对是否行使抗诉权的把握并不相同，检察机关和法院之间对待抗诉的态度也存在差异。 适用认罪认罚制度时，首先应当找到一个立足基点，以此对制度具体落实过程中面临的各种问题进行引导和解决。而这个立足基点就是认罪认罚从宽制度的首要目标到底为何。通过分析，提高效率是认罪认罚从宽制度的首要追求。根据司法实践，效率价值主要体现在节约了二审程序的司法资源，大幅度减少了二审程序的启动，降低了上诉率和抗诉率。从效率价值的角度思考，检察机关应当慎重提起二审程序。 因此，检察机关既要避免造成司法资源的浪费，又要保障被告人的上诉权，还要坚守住司法公正的底线，保持检察机关的谦抑性不失为一种最优选择。

Under the background of the increasing crime and misdemeanor cases, and the increasingly prominent contradiction between more cases and fewer staff in the case-handling organs, the leniency system of the admisson of guilt and punishment came into being, aiming to improve the litigation efficiency and optimize the judicial resource allocation. The application of the leniency system of the admisson of guilt and punishment reduces the rate of appeal and protest, and greatly reduces the start of the procedure of second instance. In recent years, through the continuous exploration of judicial practice and academic circles, the leniency system of the admisson of guilt and punishment has gradually become mature. With the continuous advancement of the procedure of criminal case, its focus has changed to the court trial stage from the review and prosecution stage, resulting in more discussions on the procuratorial organs' right to protest in the case of guilt confession and punishment admisson. Too large scope of the procuratorial organs' right to protest would not be conducive to the protection of the defendant's right of appeal, which would be suspected of judicial bullying, causing a waste of judicial resources and violating the original intention of the leniency system of the admisson of guilt and punishment ; while too small scope of the procuratorial organs' right to protest would hinder the procuratorial organs' right to exercise the function of criminal supervision and would not be conducive to the maintenance of judicial justice. Based on the 74 protested?cases of guilty admisson and punishment admisson collected by the author in Beijing. It can be summarized into three types: protest based on appeal, the failure of sentencing recommendations and other errors of fact finding and application of law. Through the analysis of the above data, the author finds that different procuratorial organs have different views on how to exercise the right to protest, and there are also great differences between procuratorial organs and courts in their attitudes to protest. When applying the leniency system of the admisson of guilt and punishment, we should first find a basis to guide us to solve the various problems faced in the implementation process of this system. This basis is the primary value of the leniency system of the admisson of guilt and punishment. Through the analysis and demonstration, the author believes that improving the efficiency is the primary goal of the leniency system of the admisson of guilt and punishment. According to judicial practice, the value efficiency is mainly reflected in saving the judicial resources of the second instance, greatly reducing the start of the second instance, and reducing the rate of appeal and protest. From the perspective of efficiency value, the procuratorial organ shall protest carefully. The procuratorial organs shall not only protect the defendant's right of appeal, but also avoid the waste of judicial resources and stick to the bottom line of judicial justice. Thus, the procuratorial organs should obey the modest and restrained principle. It is an optimal choice to maintain the modest and restrained principle of the procuratorial organs.