“If a public prosecutor gives a ruling of not to prosecute, deferred prosecution, or to set aside a ruling of deferred prosecution in accordance with the provisions of Article 252, 253, 253-1, 253-3 and 254, or gives a ruling of not to prosecute for other legal reasons, he shall prepare a written ruling setting forth the reasons thereof, provided that if consent of the complainant or informer has obtained prior to making of the ruling, only important part thereof has to be noted in the same.” “A true copy of the written ruling specified in the preceding section shall be served on the complainant, the informer, the accused, and the defense attorney; a written ruling of deferred prosecution shall be served on the victim, governmental agency, organization, or community authority related to acts to be complied with or performed as specified in the ruling.” “Within seven days after receipt of a written ruling not to prosecute or a written ruling of deferred prosecution, a complainant may make an application in writing for reconsideration of the ruling, setting forth his reasons for dissatisfaction, through the original public prosecutor to the chief public prosecutor for the immediate higher Court or public prosecutor general; provided that if consent of the complainant has been obtained prior to the ruling was made under Articles 253 and 253-1, he may not make application for reconsideration.” “When a public prosecutor makes a ruling not to prosecute on a case where the offense charged is punishable with death penalty, life imprisonment, or with a minimum punishment of imprisonment for not less than three years due to the fact that the suspicion of an offense having been committed is sufficient, or when a public prosecutor makes a ruling of deferred prosecution on a case specified in Article 253-1, original public prosecutor shall ex officio send the ruling to the chief public prosecutor of the immediate superior court or the prosecutor general for reconsideration, and notify the informer if there is no person qualified for submitting application for reconsideration.” These are the provisions of article 255 paragraph 1 and 2, article 256 paragraph 1 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

As known from above, a public prosecutor shall prepare a written ruling of deferred prosecution, which shall be served on the complainant, the informer, the accused, and the defense attorney. It should also be served on the victim, governmental agency, organization, or community authority related to acts to be complied with or performed as specified in the ruling. For the ruling of deferred prosecution, a complainant may make an application in writing for reconsideration of the ruling, setting forth his reasons for dissatisfaction, through the original public prosecutor to the chief public prosecutor for the immediate higher court or public prosecutor general within seven days after receipt of a written ruling of deferred prosecution；if there is no person qualified for submitting application for reconsideration, the original public prosecutor shall ex officio send the ruling to the chief public prosecutor of the immediate higher court or the prosecutor general for reconsideration and notify the informer.

Article 257 paragraph 1 and Article 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that“If the original public prosecutor or the chief public prosecutor of the higher court or the public prosecutor general considers the application for reconsideration to be well-grounded, he shall set aside the ruling.”The ruling of deferred prosecution has not become final at this time. If the period within which an application for such reconsideration may be made has expired or the application is not well-grounded, the ruling of deferred prosecution has become final. Thus, a public prosecutor shall prepare a written ruling which shall be served when he gives a ruling of deferred prosecution. The prosecutor in this case has found the ruling of deferred prosecution not appropriate and initiated another prosecution, and has informed the accused before the prosecution. Above can be proved by the Phone Record as attached, which reveals that“No. 2012-Zhen -15317 and No. 2012-Zhen-18898 informed the accused Guo-Hsiong Song that because he has other cases in Banqiao District Prosecutors Office. The ruling of deferred prosecution is not appropriate.” The prosecution toward the accused by the prosecutor in this case is not illegal.

deferred prosecution, setting aside a ruling of deferred prosecution, application for reconsideration