大法官釋字 670號解釋是針對冤獄賠償法第 2條第 3款之規定有無違憲之問題所做的解釋，隨著本號解釋的出爐，做成解釋的 14位大法官中計有 10位大法官就此號解釋分別或共同提出協同意見書與不同意見書，由此可充分反映出本問題之多元性、複雜性與困難性，而有深入研究之必要。本號解釋所爭議之問題，主要在於冤獄賠償之理論基礎及冤獄賠償法第 2條第 3款規範之疑義，其中冤獄賠償之法理基礎又涉及其究屬賠償還是補償，究係基於特別犧牲抑或危險責任之問題。冤獄賠償法第 2條第 3款規範之疑義則涉及該款所稱「因故意或重大過失之行為」是否包括刑事實體法上之行為，還是僅限於刑事程序法上之行為等問題，本文乃針對本號解釋此等相關之問題分別加以探討。

J. Y. Interpretation No. 670 is explain for that if Article 2, Section 3 of the act of Compensation for Wrongful Detentions and Executions is illegal to Contitution. As this interpretion was published,10 in 14 justices of the constitutional court who made the interpretation offered Coordination prospectus and Different prospectus. It can fully show that the pluralism, complexity, difficulty of the issue, and it is necessary to be further studied. This Interpretation is talk about the dispute about the basis theory of Compensation for Wrongful Detentions and Executions and the suspicion of Article 2, Section 3 of the act of Compensation for Wrongful Detentions and Executions. The basis low ethic of Compensation for Wrongful Detentions and Executions related to which should it blong to. Compensation or indemnification? Specially sacrificed or dangerous responsibility? The suspicion of Article 2, Section 3 of the act of Compensation for Wrongful Detentions and Executions to if the low which called Because of Intentional or Reckless Conduct including the behavior in substantive law of criminal procedure, or just for the behavior in Procedural law of criminal. This article is the research for this interpretation and some related issues.