Article 218 of the Criminal Law stipulates specific punishment for falsification of the public seal, which is more serious than that of Article 212 of the Criminal Law.　If a person falsifies a public document under Article 212 and the public seal under Article 218 of the Criminal Law simultaneously, he or she should be judged under Article 212 but not under Article 218 of the Criminal Law. Therefore, Interpretation (before 1948) No.3020, Subparagraph 3, does not violate the purpose of legislation, and hence should not be amended.

　　　 Pursuant to the Resolution of the 118th Meeting of the Grand Justices: The central or local authority has some doubts about when to apply the Constitution Law or orders that were interpreted by the Judicial Yuan and has thus petitioned for interpretation.　Pursuant to Articles 4 and 7 of the Law of the forgoing Meeting of the Grand Justices, the grand justices should convene to re-interpret the law.　

　　　 Because the case concerns the questions the Supreme Court has about Subparagraph 3 of Interpretation (before 1948) No.3020, it should be re-interpreted according to the abovementioned petition.　Article 212 of the Criminal Law stipulates specific punishment for a person who falsifies public or private documents.　Article 218 of the Criminal Law stipulates specific punishment for falsification of the public seal.　If a person falsifies a public document under Article 212 and the public seal simultaneously, he should be judged under Article 212 but not under Article 218 of Criminal Law.　Therefore, Interpretation (before 1948) No.3020, Subparagraph 3, does not violate the purpose of legislation. Moreover, pursuant to Article 218 of the Criminal Law, a person convicted of falsification of the public seal may be sentenced to imprisonment of up to five years.　If a person falsifies a public document under Article 212 and the public seal under Article 218 simultaneously, he or she may be sentenced to imprisonment of not more than one year or subject to a fine of under NTS300　Thus, the punishment is unfair and violates the purpose of legislation.　

　　　 Based on those reasons, Interpretation (before 1948) No.3020, Subparagraph 3, should not be amended.