Disciplinary Court Organization Act Article 21
The adjudication of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary on discipline cases of the first instance shall be reviewed and conducted by a panel in accordance with the number of judges and expert lay judges of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary as stipulated in Paragraph 1, Article 48 of the Judges Act.The review as mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall follow the provisions set out below:1. The judges of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary and expert lay judges shall participate throughout the whole process, with the presiding judge as the chairperson, in the discussions of fact identification, application of the law, the types and effects of disciplinary dispositions in sequence.2. During the review, expert lay judges and judges of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary shall individually state their opinions in sequence, in the order of the one of least seniority of service being first, and seniority of age prevails for two judges of equal seniority of service, until the presiding judge as the finish.3. Expert lay judges and judges of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary shall not refuse to state their opinions on the next matter that should be reviewed due to their minority opinion on the reviewed matter.4. The review shall be concluded by a majority opinion. If the opinions of judges of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary and expert lay judges are divided into three or more different arguments, each of which not reaching the majority, the opinion that is most unfavorable to the person to be disciplined shall be counted as the opinion that is less unfavorable to the person to be disciplined in turn, until the majority is reached.5. During the review, the opinions of judges of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary and expert lay judges shall be recorded in the review book. The original copy of the review book shall be signed by judges of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary and expert lay judges participating in the review. If judges of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary or expert lay judgesrefuse to sign or cannot sign for some reason, the presiding judge shall record the reason. If the presiding judge is unable to sign for some reason, it shall be noted by the senior associate judge.
中文原文 懲戒法院組織法第21條
職務法庭第一審懲戒案件之裁判，應依法官法第四十八條第一項所定職務法庭法官及參審員人數評議決定之。
前項評議，應遵守下列規定：
一、職務法庭法官及參審員應全程參與，並以審判長為主席，依序討論事實之認定、法律之適用、懲戒處分種類及效果。
二、評議時應依序由參審員、職務法庭法官個別陳述意見，其次序以資淺者為先，資同以年少者為先，遞至審判長為終。
三、參審員、職務法庭法官不得因其就評議事項係屬少數意見，而拒絕對次一應行評議之事項陳述意見。
四、評議以過半數之意見決定之。
如職務法庭法官及參審員之意見分三說以上，各不達過半數時，以最不利於被付懲戒人之意見順次算入次不利於被付懲戒人之意見，至達過半數為止。
五、評議時各法官及參審員之意見應記載於評議簿。
評議簿之原本，應由參與評議之法官及參審員簽名；法官或參審員拒絕簽名或因故不能簽名者，由審判長附記其事由。
審判長因故不能簽名者，由資深陪席法官附記之。
前項評議，應遵守下列規定：
一、職務法庭法官及參審員應全程參與，並以審判長為主席，依序討論事實之認定、法律之適用、懲戒處分種類及效果。
二、評議時應依序由參審員、職務法庭法官個別陳述意見，其次序以資淺者為先，資同以年少者為先，遞至審判長為終。
三、參審員、職務法庭法官不得因其就評議事項係屬少數意見，而拒絕對次一應行評議之事項陳述意見。
四、評議以過半數之意見決定之。
如職務法庭法官及參審員之意見分三說以上，各不達過半數時，以最不利於被付懲戒人之意見順次算入次不利於被付懲戒人之意見，至達過半數為止。
五、評議時各法官及參審員之意見應記載於評議簿。
評議簿之原本，應由參與評議之法官及參審員簽名；法官或參審員拒絕簽名或因故不能簽名者，由審判長附記其事由。
審判長因故不能簽名者，由資深陪席法官附記之。