This Yuan explains, where there is an amendment to the content of its basis of rulings, prior to rendering an interpretation of its amendment, if the objective of the new ruling is consistent with the previous ruling, the legal cause is the same, the interpretation matter still exists or the content of the interpretation can be used to supplement the new ruling, the ruling remains valid.　Under the ruling, where a public servant takes advantage of his or her position and occupies　personal property which is not for public use, such act is considered embezzlement, and should be punishable separately in accordance with Article 6, Subparagraph 3 or 4, of the Statute for Punishment of Embezzlement during the Period for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion.　If the case is minor, and the proceeds or the property goods acquired are valued at less than NT$3,000, then Article 12, Paragraph 1, of the said statute shall apply.　This Yuan’s Explanations Nos. 3080 and 3015 shall thus require supplemental interpretations.

　　　 As clearly expressed in the reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 108: “This Yuan explains, unless the ruling content has been amended and became null, prior to the establishment of an amendment, the ruling remains valid, and should not be otherwise contradicted.”　The citation that the ruling content has been amended and become void refers to a ruling used as interpretational basis that has become null, and the interpretation content is contradictory to the current ruling.　If before the amendment of an interpretation, it appears that the legal objectives of the new and old rulings are consistent, the legal explanations are the same, the subject matter of the interpretation still exists or the content of the interpretation can be used to supplement the new ruling, then the existing ruling will remain in effect.　For the authority who requested this interpretation, we want to clarify that since the Statute for Punishment of Embezzlement used as ruling basis of our Explanations Nos. 3015 and 3080 was abolished, after the promulgation of the Statute for Bribery Punishment during the Period for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion, it raises doubt as to the applicability of this interpretation.

　　　 Based on regulations, concerning the act of embezzlement committed by public officials, in addition to the itemized provisions of the Statute for Punishment of Embezzlement, Article 6, Subparagraphs 3 and 4, of the Statute provides a general rule for application, and the purpose of such statute is to implement punishment of embezzlement in order to ensure the ethical behavior of public officials. The provisions of the two abovementioned subparagraphs, under the principle that a special law has precedence over an ordinary law, shall have precedence over the provisions of the Criminal Code in application. Where a public official takes advantage of his or her position and occupies personal property that is not for public use, this is considered an act of embezzlement. As there is no specific provision for punishment under said statute, such action should be penalized in accordance with the abovementioned two subparagraphs depending upon whether this case is a matter concerning the competent authority or a supervisor.　It is evident that the provisions of the two abovementioned subparagraphs and the legal purpose of Article 4, Subparagraphs 6 and 7, of the abolished Statute for Punishment of Embezzlement are the same. The interpretations in our Explanations Nos. 3080 and 3015 still have supplemental application to the current ruling, and thus have not lost their effect due to the abolishment of the Statute for Punishment of Embezzlement.　However, if the case is minor, and the proceeds or the property goods acquired are valued at less than NT$3,000, then Article 12, Paragraph 1, of the Statute for Punishment of Embezzlement shall apply and provide supplemental interpretation.