Abstract: In response to the practical needs of minor offense governance, prosecutorial authorities have gradually developed a governance model combining discretionary non-prosecution with community service. This model helps address the problem of releasing offenders without subsequent supervision, concretizes the assessment of an offender's personal dangerousness, repairs the social relations harmed by criminal conduct, mitigates the negative effects of criminal stigma, and promotes pretrial diversion to alleviate the tension between caseloads and judicial resources. In essence, the model falls within the scope of negotiated justice. However, due to the lack of top-level institutional design, several practical deviations have emerged in its operation, including substituting the determination of criminal liability with an assessment of the necessity of punishment, the overgeneralized application of community service, and asymmetry in negotiation procedures. This model should be improved along three dimensions. First, prosecutorial authorities should uphold the principle of separating the determination of criminal liability from the imposition of punishment, and strictly adhere to the factual premise for establishing criminality. Second, it is necessary to regulate its application by strengthening the relevance between community service and specific offenses, clarifying the scope of application, improving assessment mechanisms, and establishing formal hearing procedures. Third, full respect should be given to offenders' voluntary participation in community service, while effectively safeguarding their right to be informed and their right to legal counsel, so as to enhance the protection of procedural rights.