In the process of deepening the leniency system of admitting guilt and accepting punishment, it is no longer limited to a rule or confined to the criminal procedural law, but a major change from the perspective of the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity, which has a huge impact on the concept, system and practice. It is the transformation of criminal procedure and even the national governance structure, and it has era significance for realizing Chinese-style modernization and promoting high-quality judicial development. Among them, the “shall generally adopt” clause has a key mission. Through the court’s adoption of the procuratorate’s sentencing recommendations, the leniency system encourages the accused to admit guilt and accept punishment early, facilitates evidence collection, expedites prosecution, and enables rapid trials—thus saving substantial judicial resources and alleviating the burden on investigation, prosecution, trial, and other links. However, in the rapid progress of the procedure, the public interest is difficult to safeguard, the accused’s admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment are unknowing and irrational, assistance from lawyers is nominal, and the victims’ rights and interests are ignored. Subject to the “shall generally adopt” clause, even if the court finds the above injustice, it is difficult to punish, and the strong restriction mode restricts the initiative of the court, which not only increases the contradiction between the subjects of the lawsuit, but also seriously damages the due mission of the leniency system. In the reform of the court’s trial level function positioning, and the reform of the trial quality management index system, it is emphasized that case handling should pay equal attention to fairness and efficiency, adhere to the priority of quality, take into account efficiency, and achieve both quality, efficiency and benefit. This requires giving full play to the key role of the court in accurately ascertaining facts and substantively resolving disputes, the further goal is to fully release the discretion of the adjudicator on the basis of ensuring the justice of the case, so as to realize active justice. Therefore, reasonable exceptions to the adoption of sentencing recommendations can leave a path for the court to make its own decision, and promote fair judgment, balance of prosecution and trial, and procedural justice in the process of admitting guilt and accepting punishment. The exception models vary across different institutional contexts, but there is also convergence, reasonable elements should be comprehensively investigated on the basis of dialectical analysis. Incorporating circumstances such as inconsistent with the public interest, unknowing and irrational, without the assistance of a lawyer, and without taking the victim’s opinions into account into the category of other circumstances that may affect a fair trial, and constantly enriching its content and actual standards, can promote the leniency system of admitting guilt and accepting punishment to play a greater role in the new stage of development.