The Anti-corruption Statute (1963) is a special law enacted by our government to combat corruption. According to the statute, the punish of work-related embezzlement, larceny, fraud, and illegally profiting committed by the public official is substantially increased to deter corruption, but the effect is not clear. Prosecuted cases of embezzlement in the period 1999 and 2000 wee taken as sample to examine the effect. Results show that courts usually cite varied commutation regulations so that the pronounced term of imprisonment substantially lower than the minimum term stipulated in applicable laws. When the defendants and government put more funds and efforts to the lawsuits, the trial lengths are prolonged, the conviction rates are lowered. After all, the deterrence to corruption is less efficient. On the other hand, resulting from the defect of some commutation regulations and the difference of defendant's finance support, some judges are unfair. According to the interpretations No. 476 and 551 of the Council of Justice of the Constitution Court, if special criminal laws place special restrictions on people's basic rights, the content of which shall conform to 'the principle of appropriateness between offense and penalty' and 'the principle of proportionality'. The Anti-Corruption Statute doesn't seem to fit these principles very well. Because the Criminal code is enough to regulate the work-related embezzlement committed by the public official, it is better choice to abolish special regulation in the Anti-Corruption Statute and return to the Criminal Code. Keywords: graffiti, adolescent deviance, adolescent subculture