緩刑與緩起訴均設有附條件之規定，且附條件的內容，除指定支付的對象之外，其餘者皆屬相同。但因緩刑屬於刑罰權宣示的效應；而緩起訴乃刑事程序終結案件的特別授權關係，其並未有刑罰權的具體效應發生，亦即案件並未經論罪科刑確定，故非屬於刑罰權的作用。由於緩刑與緩起訴的法律屬性不同，其附條件的性質與法律效應，亦應對於附條件所依附的基礎處分，而有所差異。惟其差異性何在？究竟緩刑及緩起訴附條件的法律性質為何？其是否具有必然的強制性關係？當附條件的義務未被履行時，所生的法律效應為何？特別是當有附條件的緩刑或緩起訴被撤銷時，對於已經履行的附條件，是否得以主張返還或賠償？均屬必須加以釐清的問題。

There are regulations with conditionality in both probation and defer-prosecution. The contents of such regulations are almost the same, excluding the designated subject of payment. Probation has the effects of declaring the penalty, while defer-prosecution doesn't have concrete effects of the penalty due to the specific authorizing relationships for closing the legal case in criminal procedure. The legal attributes of probation and defer-prosecution are different, which make the nature and legal effects of conditionality in probation and defer-prosecution differ by the attached fundamental disciplinary action. This essay tries to figure out the differences and related issues between probation and defer-prosecution.