刑法第41條易科罰金規定，自2001年啟動修正以來，經歷四次相當極端的修 正，其中爭議最大的問題，乃在數罪併罰的易科罰金處理問題，在修法的過程中， 對於數罪併罰結果，如應執行之刑逾六個月時，得否適用易科罰金？對此問題修法 的態度，游移在「得與不得」的兩端，法律修正的動向，從得以適用易科罰金（2001 年）到不得易科罰金（2005 年），再變回得易科罰金（現行法），其中最重要的 指標性因素，乃在於大法官會議解釋的拘束性意思表示，對於數罪併罰涉及是否得 為易科罰金問題，前後共有四號釋字解釋（第144 號、第366 號、第662 號及第 679號），其中最核心的指標性解釋，當推釋字第366號及第662號解釋，該二號 解釋對於數罪併罰是否得適用易科罰金的明確表態，直接影響著法律的修正。然而 該四號解釋對於數罪併罰的易科罰金問題，並未直指核心作概念上的釐清，反而更 加混淆易科罰金的性質，連帶也使得數罪併罰的易科罰金適用範圍，出現相當的混 亂。這是值得重新思考與檢討的問題。

The article 41 of the Criminal Law has been amended extremely for four times sine 2001. The most controversial issue is about dealing with the sentence of substitute fines when there is combined punishment for several offenses. During the process of amending the Criminal Law, the attitude of amending is constantly changing. The most important indexed factor is the restrained idea in the four Grand Justice Committee Interpretations about if the combined punishment for several offenses can apply to the sentence of substitute fines or not. (cf. No.144, No.366, No.662, No.679) However, these four interpretations can not clarify the core concept about this issue. Therefore, the issue is worthy to be deliberated and examined again.