釋字第662號解釋除推翻了刑法第41條第2項規定外，並肯定釋字第366號解釋之意旨，因此究竟數罪併罰是否必然剝奪受刑人易科罰金之機會？似有待釐清。本文除從說明何以我國執行實務在數罪併罰應執行刑超過6月的情形中，不可避免地將存在如釋字第366號解釋般，部份犯罪易科罰金之現象外，為進一步回應學說上反對釋字第366號解釋之理由，本文並就我國法與德國法間關於短期自由刑之救濟，進行比較法之分析。在理解我國與德國法制間的差異後，本文將另自美國法的觀點，說明何以複數微罪併罰不必然導致重罪之評價。為求論述的周延，本文亦自憲法上人權保障之觀點，說明何以新刑法第41條第2項一概不准易科罰金之規定，有違反比例原則之疑義，並認刑法第41條第2 項本身所涉及之爭議並非單純如同立法委員所言，僅屬於立法裁量之事項。最後，本文總結相關論點，並提出本文之建議與觀點。

While the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 662 overruled Paragraph 2 of Article 41 of the 2005 ROC Criminal Code, which reads against the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 366, it becomes questionable whether the more than six months of combined sentence of criminal concurrence automatically and undoubtedly results in imprisonment. In response to the scholarly critics to the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 366, comparative analyses between Germany and Taiwan focusing on issues of "criminal concurrence" and "avoiding short-term imprisonment" are conducted. In addition, this article also refers to an American judicial opinion concerning if multiple petty offenses become a serious one in a single criminal proceeding. Finally, since this article concludes Paragraph 2 of Article 41 of the 2005 ROC Criminal Code violates the principle of proportional justice clause in the ROC Constitution, it does not belong to the legislative power to deprive the defendant of every opportunity to get imprisonment term fined in criminal concurrence no more. As a result, this study concludes the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 662 is correct to vacate Paragraph 2 of Article 41 of the 2005 ROC Criminal Code with some juridical analyses.