從偵查效率要求或從治安觀點甚至是訴訟經濟觀點而言，尋求被告自白，是偵查犯罪的上策。自白作為直接證據的一種，可謂支配刑事司法程序圓滿運作之關鍵。當被告基於不自證己罪權利之放棄而提供自己犯罪之證據之自白時，國家給予司法豁免或減輕刑事責任優待之「刑事免責」之特權；是在訴訟法制上承認「發現真實」有其極限，當在無礙於公益與法秩序前提下，轉而在法制規範上設計使被告（或犯罪嫌疑人）參與真實之發現，使犯罪事實更迅速發現，追訴權更得以順利發動、審判權更能及早確定者，國家給予一定程度減免刑事責任的法律上利益。 我國防制貪污、毒品、槍砲之刑事立法對策，歷來採行重刑化及疊床架屋式模式，但又認知重刑化立法之缺失，復針對自首或自白規範減免刑責等措施為其重要之特徵，但由於我國法律上對被告減輕其刑規定錯綜複雜，其所規定之被告自白減輕其刑之要件互有不同，致使審判實務上見解有所岐異，本文則就司法實務上常見之貪污、毒品、槍砲之重大犯罪類型案件中所規定被告自白減免其刑在適用所衍生之爭議問題，做一實務見解與理論結合之探討。

From the perspectives of investigation efficiency, law and order, and litigation economy, it is the best way to get confession from the accused. As direct evidence, confession is a key issues to run a better criminal justice system. I a sense the accused confess to benefit from judicial lenient policy results from an idea that a lenient program would accelerate the trial process since it is impossible to discover the real truth. While the criminal justice policy regarding corruption, drugs, and guns has long been overlapped and over-criminalized, the legislation provides surrendering and confession commutation as a remedy for legislative deficiency. Nonetheless, the criminal practice regarding how to commutate becomes confusing due to the legislative complex. In order to clarify this confession commutation confusion, this study would analyze judicial opinions and the related legal theories of offenses of corruption, drugs, and guns and conclude with appropriate suggestions.