Judges Act Article 89
The provisions in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 1, Article 6, Article 12, Paragraph 2 of Article 13, Article 15, Subparagraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Article 16, Article 17, Article 18, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of Article 42, Paragraphs 1 to 3, and 5 of Article 43, Articles 44 to 46, Article 49, Article 50, Article 50-1, Article 71, Articles 73 to 75, Paragraphs 1, 4, and 5 of Article 76, Article 77, Paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 78, Article 79, Paragraph 1 of Article 80, Article 101-2, Chapter 5, and Chapter 9 of this Act concerning judges shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to prosecutors; the provisions concerning the Judicial Yuan, Judges Academy, and judicial authority shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to the Ministry of Justice, the Academy for the Judiciary of the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution authority. The Ministry of Justice shall formulate regulations concerning the term and transfer for the chief prosecutors and head prosecutors of the prosecutors' offices and their branch offices at all levels below the High Prosecutors Office.The Prosecutor Evaluation Committee shall be composed of three prosecutors, one judge, three attorneys, as well as six scholars and social representatives; the members of the evaluation committee shall serve a term of two years and may be re-appointed once. The individual case evaluation shall be conducted on the prosecutor who is in any of the following circumstances: 1. For cases with final and binding judgments rendered or without final and binding judgments for more than six years since the date of the filing of such cases of the first instance, or cases with the disposition of non-prosecution or deferred prosecution that have become final and binding, there are sufficient facts to conclude the existence of obvious and significant errors due to acts committed intentionally or with gross negligence, causing serious infringement on the rights and interests of the people. 2. Severe violations of Paragraph 2 of Article 95.3. Violations of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15. 4. Severe violations of Paragraph 1 of Article 15, Article 16, or Article 18. 5. Severe violations of case management procedures or rules of duties such as non-disclosure during investigations.6. Undue delay of the case process without proper justification which severely affects the rights and interests of the parties. 7. Severe violations of the prosecutor's ethical rules.Legal opinions on the application of the law shall not be the basis of individual case evaluation of prosecutors.The Ministry of Justice shall formulate the Code of Conduct for Prosecutors referred to in Subparagraph 7 of Paragraph 4.Prosecutors who are in any of the circumstances stipulated in the various subparagraphs of Paragraph 4 shall be subject to disciplinary action if deemed necessary.The discipline against prosecutors shall be reviewed by the Disciplinary Chamber the Judiciary of the Disciplinary Court. The forwarding and review procedures shall apply mutatis mutandis to the disciplinary procedures for judges. The remuneration standards stipulated in Subparagraphs 3, Paragraphs 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 72 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remunerations for the Minister of the Ministry of Justice transferred from the judge or prosecutor position and the Prosecutor General at the Supreme Prosecutors Office. The remuneration standards for the Deputy Minister of Justice transferred from the judge or prosecutor position shall apply mutatis mutandis the remuneration standards for deputy minister level for political appointees, plus the professional allowance stipulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 71.Paragraph 4 of Article 78 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the resignation of the Minister or Deputy Minister of Justice transferred from the judge or prosecutor position. The same provision shall apply to the resignation of the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors Office.Paragraph 2 of Article 80 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the consolation of death on-the-job for the Prosecutor-General of the Supreme Prosecutors Office.
中文原文 法官法第89條
本法第一條第二項、第三項、第六條、第十二條、第十三條第二項、第十五條、第十六條第一款、第二款、第四款、第五款、第十七條、第十八條、第四十二條第一項、第二項、第四項、第四十三條第一項至第三項、第五項、第四十四條至第四十六條、第四十九條、第五十條、第五十條之一、第七十一條、第七十三條至第七十五條、第七十六條第一項、第四項、第五項、第七十七條、第七十八條第一項至第三項、第七十九條、第八十條第一項、第一百零一條之二、第五章、第九章有關法官之規定，於檢察官準用之；其有關司法院、法官學院及審判機關之規定，於法務部、法務部司法官學院及檢察機關準用之。
高等檢察署以下各級檢察署及其檢察分署檢察長、主任檢察官之職期調任辦法，由法務部定之。
檢察官評鑑委員會由檢察官三人、法官一人、律師三人、學者及社會公正人士六人組成；評鑑委員任期為二年，得連任一次。
檢察官有下列各款情事之一者，應付個案評鑑：
一、裁判確定後或自第一審繫屬日起已逾六年未能裁判確定之案件、不起訴處分或緩起訴處分確定之案件，有事實足認因故意或重大過失，致有明顯違誤，而嚴重侵害人民權益者。
二、有第九十五條第二款情事，情節重大。
三、違反第十五條第二項、第三項規定。
四、違反第十五條第一項、第十六條或第十八條規定，情節重大。
五、違反偵查不公開等辦案程序規定或職務規定，情節重大。
六、無正當理由遲延案件之進行，致影響當事人權益，情節重大。
七、違反檢察官倫理規範，情節重大。
適用法律之見解，不得據為檢察官個案評鑑之事由。
第四項第七款檢察官倫理規範，由法務部定之。
檢察官有第四項各款所列情事之一，有懲戒之必要者，應受懲戒。
檢察官之懲戒，由懲戒法院職務法庭審理之。
其移送及審理程序準用法官之懲戒程序。
法務部部長由法官、檢察官轉任者及最高檢察署檢察總長，其俸給準用第七十二條第一項第三款及第二項標準支給。
法務部政務次長由法官、檢察官轉任者，其俸給準用政務人員次長級標準支給，並給與第七十一條第一項規定之專業加給。
法務部部長、政務次長由法官、檢察官轉任者退職時，準用第七十八條第四項規定辦理。
最高檢察署檢察總長退職時，亦同。
最高檢察署檢察總長在職死亡之撫卹，準用第八十條第二項之規定。
高等檢察署以下各級檢察署及其檢察分署檢察長、主任檢察官之職期調任辦法，由法務部定之。
檢察官評鑑委員會由檢察官三人、法官一人、律師三人、學者及社會公正人士六人組成；評鑑委員任期為二年，得連任一次。
檢察官有下列各款情事之一者，應付個案評鑑：
一、裁判確定後或自第一審繫屬日起已逾六年未能裁判確定之案件、不起訴處分或緩起訴處分確定之案件，有事實足認因故意或重大過失，致有明顯違誤，而嚴重侵害人民權益者。
二、有第九十五條第二款情事，情節重大。
三、違反第十五條第二項、第三項規定。
四、違反第十五條第一項、第十六條或第十八條規定，情節重大。
五、違反偵查不公開等辦案程序規定或職務規定，情節重大。
六、無正當理由遲延案件之進行，致影響當事人權益，情節重大。
七、違反檢察官倫理規範，情節重大。
適用法律之見解，不得據為檢察官個案評鑑之事由。
第四項第七款檢察官倫理規範，由法務部定之。
檢察官有第四項各款所列情事之一，有懲戒之必要者，應受懲戒。
檢察官之懲戒，由懲戒法院職務法庭審理之。
其移送及審理程序準用法官之懲戒程序。
法務部部長由法官、檢察官轉任者及最高檢察署檢察總長，其俸給準用第七十二條第一項第三款及第二項標準支給。
法務部政務次長由法官、檢察官轉任者，其俸給準用政務人員次長級標準支給，並給與第七十一條第一項規定之專業加給。
法務部部長、政務次長由法官、檢察官轉任者退職時，準用第七十八條第四項規定辦理。
最高檢察署檢察總長退職時，亦同。
最高檢察署檢察總長在職死亡之撫卹，準用第八十條第二項之規定。