Judges Act Article 93
The Prosecutor-General or chief prosecutor may, under any of the following circumstances, personally engage in the prosecutorial matters of a prosecutor under his/her supervision, and may reassign them to any other prosecutors under his/her supervision in accordance with Article 64 of the Court Organic Act:1. When necessary to pursue appropriate application of laws or unified indictment standards.2. When sufficient facts demonstrate that the prosecutor violates the law, apparently [acting] inappropriately or is likely to be biased in the discharge of duties. 3. When the prosecutor, having submitted a written request with ratio decidendi in disagreement with a written order referred to in Paragraph 2 of the preceding article and ruled by the supervisory officer to maintain the original order, nevertheless disobeys.4. When necessary to transfer an exceptionally complex, or a technical case to another prosecutor since the original prosecutor is incapable of handling the case.Under the circumstances stated in the preceding paragraph, orders from the Prosecutor-General or the chief prosecutor shall be in writing and with ratio decidendi attached. The prosecutor shall obey order given by the supervisory officer referred to in the preceding two paragraphs , provided, however, that dissenting views may be provided in writing.
中文原文 法官法第93條
檢察總長、檢察長於有下列各款情形之一者，得依法院組織法第六十四條親自處理其所指揮監督之檢察官之事務，並得將該事務移轉於其所指揮監督之其他檢察官處理：
一、為求法律適用之妥適或統一追訴標準，認有必要時。
二、有事實足認檢察官執行職務違背法令、顯有不當或有偏頗之虞時。
三、檢察官不同意前條第二項之書面命令，經以書面陳述意見後，指揮監督長官維持原命令，其仍不遵從。
四、特殊複雜或專業之案件，原檢察官無法勝任，認有移轉予其他檢察官處理之必要時。
前項情形，檢察總長、檢察長之命令應以書面附理由為之。
前二項指揮監督長官之命令，檢察官應服從之，但得以書面陳述不同意見。
一、為求法律適用之妥適或統一追訴標準，認有必要時。
二、有事實足認檢察官執行職務違背法令、顯有不當或有偏頗之虞時。
三、檢察官不同意前條第二項之書面命令，經以書面陳述意見後，指揮監督長官維持原命令，其仍不遵從。
四、特殊複雜或專業之案件，原檢察官無法勝任，認有移轉予其他檢察官處理之必要時。
前項情形，檢察總長、檢察長之命令應以書面附理由為之。
前二項指揮監督長官之命令，檢察官應服從之，但得以書面陳述不同意見。