德國近三十年來，有關刑事訴訟程序中訴訟參與者在主要審判程序，以終結程序為一致目標的和談對話進行，一直是德國刑事訴訟領域被討論最多的議題。一直到1997年，德國聯邦最高法院一個指標性判決，明白地針對刑事訴訟程序中的和解承諾提出法律上的界限。2005年聯邦最高法院大法庭確立了上述最高法院第四庭所提出的指導原則，並且主張應該說服立法者在條文上對於和解承諾判決之允許前提、法律與事實要件以及界限加以明確規範。聯邦憲法法院對此於2013年3月19日做出刑事訴訟法第257條c為合憲之判決。本文針對德國協商判決制度在明文規定前後的實務運作情形加以觀察，對德國協商判決制度的實踐狀況之實證調查成果加以介紹。而後本文就我國認罪協商制度的實務運作狀況，以統計數字及現存的實證研究成果為基礎進行一些說明，再與德國協商判決制度的實務運作狀況進行些許比較，或許德國的法制與實踐經驗可以對於我國法制與實務運作提供參考。

Discussions between the participants in a criminal case with the aim of consensual settlement of an imminent or already occurring trial are since 30 years the most debated topics of criminal procedure in Germany. The german Congress has attempted in 2009.7.29 to give a law regulating of plea bargaining in criminal procedure. In the study will present the concept and the practical experiences of plea bargaining in criminal procedure in Germany, especially according to § 257c Code of Criminal procedure Law. In Taiwan there was few interest of the practical study in the plea guilty system. Then with the concept and the practical experiences of the plea bargaining in Germany could be brought for plea guilty in Taiwan a proposal review.