Juvenile Justice Act Article 64-1

After a disposition that pronounces protective measures is finalized and it is deemed that the protective measures concerned should not apply for any of the following reasons, a juvenile protection officer, the juvenile, his/her statutory agent, a person who currently protects the juvenile or his/her assistant may apply to the juvenile court that pronounced the protective measures for a trial de novo:1. where the application of the law is clearly mistaken and the error is sufficiently significant to affect the ruling;2. where newly established evidence is sufficient to show that the protective measures should not apply to the juvenile in question;3. where circumstance for retrial in accordance with Article 420, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 1, 2, 4, or 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies.Provisions in Article 423, Article 429, the first part of Article 430, Articles 431 to 434, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 435, and Article 436 shall apply mutatis mutandis to procedures of trial de novo in the preceding paragraph.Where the juvenile court which pronounced the protective measures finds one of the circumstances in the subparagraphs of Paragraph 1, it may deliver a ruling of trial de novo on its own initiative.Where after the completion of the execution of protective measures, a finding is made to subject the juvenile to criminal prosecution due to the results of a trial de novo, the ensuing disadvantage shall apply to the juvenile, and a ruling of transferring the said juvenile to a prosecutor of the prosecutors’ office in the competent court shall not be made.
中文原文 少年事件處理法第64-1條
諭知保護處分之裁定確定後,有左列情形之一,認為應不付保護處分者,少年保護官、少年、少年之法定代理人、現在保護少年之人或輔佐人得聲請為保護處分之少年法院重新審理︰一、適用法規顯有錯誤,並足以影響裁定之結果者。
二、因發見確實之新證據,足認受保護處分之少年,應不付保護處分者。
三、有刑事訴訟法第四百二十條第一項第一款、第二款、第四款或第五款所定得為再審之情形者。
刑事訴訟法第四百二十三條、第四百二十九條、第四百三十條前段、第四百三十一條至第四百三十四條、第四百三十五條第一項、第二項、第四百三十六條之規定,於前項之重新審理程序準用之。
為保護處分之少年法院發見有第一項各款所列情形之一者,亦得依職權為應重新審理之裁定。
少年受保護處分之執行完畢後,因重新審理之結果,須受刑事訴追者,其不利益不及於少年,毋庸裁定移送於有管轄權之法院檢察署檢察官。

English translation for reference only; the Chinese text prevails. Not legal advice.