本文主張一事不再理為刑事被告憲法上之基本人權，在審判期日之證據調查開始時，被告即受該權利之保護。如檢察官在此一時點之後撤回起訴，雖無判決之形成，但因為被告已受該權利之保護，除有合於憲法例外之情形，不得就同一犯罪再為起訴。在一事不再理之權利附著「後」，本文主張檢察官若未得被告之同意，不得撤回起訴。我國刑事訴訟法第269條，准許檢察官不經被告同意即得撤回起訴，並得就同一案件在符合第260條規定再行起訴，部份違反被告一事不再理之權利。就撤回起訴之確定問題，現行法混淆起訴「前」及起訴「後」程序之本質，並不正確，本文建議：告訴人對於檢察官撤回起訴之決定不服，應準用交付審判程序之法理，由法院決定撤回起訴是否有理由。

A criminal defendant's right against double jeopardy shall have its constitutional origin in Taiwan even though the Constitution does not have any words about it. Taiwan's Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) allows a prosecutor to withdraw the indictment without the defendant's consent before the closing arguments at trial. Under CCP, a prosecutor has broad discretion to indict the same offense as long as there are new facts, evidence or other specific reasons. The justification for the re-prosecution of the same offense is the traditional concept that the right against double jeopardy does not attach until a verdict is given and becomes final. This Article argues that the relevant provisions in CCP allowing the re-prosecution of the same offense after the withdrawal of indictment are unconstitutional. This Article bases its argument on the ground that a defendant is put in jeopardy even though the criminal proceeding against him terminates before verdict. Furthermore, this Article argues that the right against double jeopardy in Taiwan shall attach when the court starts the examination of evidence at trial. After this point, a prosecutor may not withdraw the indictment without the defendant's consent. However, before this point, a prosecutor may withdraw the indictment only under the reasons specified in the Article 269 of CCP. A prosecutor may not re-prosecute the same offence unless he meets the conditions specified in the Article 260 of CCP.