本文自再議制度監督不起訴處分之規範基礎出發，自比較法的觀點，分析探討美日德等各國不起訴處分之效力，並分析現行刑事訴訟法第260 條如何導致我國實務過度重視不起訴處分之現象。為了解詳明刑事訴訟法第260 條規定之妥適性，本文自美國憲法人權法案中禁止雙重審判危險之觀點，探討所謂一事不再理原則之內涵，除釐清偵查程序與再議程序並不足致被告遭受有罪判決之風險外，並主張現行刑事訴訟法第260 條賦予確定不起訴處分實質確定力之規定並不洽當。此外，本文基於權力分立之觀點，主張只有法院有權確認刑罰權基礎事實是否存在，檢察官相關的事實認定，充其量不過僅具有建議之性質，並不具有拘束法院之效力，故若以之作為不起訴處分實質確定力之判斷基礎，似有侵害法院事實認定權限之疑義。本諸糾問模式下偵查程序所確認之事實在意義上迥異於改良式當事人進行主義下審判程序所認定之事實，本文更肯定於制度上不應賦予偵查結果之不起訴處分具有類似確定判決般，在犯罪事實不存在與刑罰權不存在部份具有實質確定力。為免實務繼續不當糾纏於不起訴處分實質確定力之範圍，本文認為應廢除刑事訴訟法第260 條不起訴處分具實質確定力之規定。

While the Reconsideration is designed to be a check for non-prosecution decision, this paper analyzes the non-prosecution decision from the comparative viewpoint.This paper also discusses double jeopardy rule in the United States Constitution and concludes that a non-prosecution decision would not result in any criminal jeopardy to bar another prosecution.In addition, from the view point of separation of powers, this paper claims that only the judicial branch is entitled to make punishable decisions, and a non-binding decision of prosecution itself only suggests the court to convict.The prosecutorial power, based upon the inquisitorial model, would infringe the judicial power if a non-prosecution decision makes an irrevocable fact finding.To avoid the question whether a non-prosecution decision makes an irrevocable fact finding, this paper suggests that Article 260 of the ROC CPC to be abolished.