雖然釋字第 662 號解釋肯定釋字第 366 號解釋之意旨，但是釋字第 679 號解釋卻延續釋字第 144 號解釋之精神，限制易科罰金之適用，因此關於數罪併罰應否限制易科罰金？似有待釐清。本文除從規範目的說明數罪併罰與易科罰金外，更將易科罰金定位為轉向處分，並以此說明釋字第 366 號解釋與第 662 號解釋。此外，為進一步釐清釋字第 679 號解釋之盲點，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，本文主張易科罰金之轉向將排除依數罪併罰定應執行刑，並指出此種說法亦有助於累犯爭議之釐清。最後，本文總結相關論點，解構釋字第 679 號解釋之爭議並提出本文之建議與觀點。

While the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 662 affirms the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 366, the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 679 still follows the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 144, which held that diverted fine from imprisonment is inapplicable in that concurrence case. It becomes questionable whether the criminal concurrence automatically and undoubtedly results in imprisonment. In addition to indentifying the goals of criminal concurrence and diverted fine from imprisonment, this study justifies the Grand Justice Council Interpretations of No. 366 and 662 based on the point of diversion. Further comparative analyses between Germany and Taiwan focusing on issues of “criminal concurrence” and “avoiding short-term imprisonment” are conducted also. After the comparative analysis, this study asserts that diversion program would be excluded from criminal concurrence, which provides a better solution for recidivism. As a result, this study points out defects of the Grand Justice Council Interpretation No. 679 with some practical suggestions.