according to the Act, any person in violation of the provisions should without exception be sentenced to compulsory labor. With regard to the said question, the Supreme Court on October 11, 2018, suspended deliberations and petitioned for a constitutional interpretation. Apparently, the criteria for a ruling of a compulsory labor sentence are not clear nor fair enough. The Judicial Yuan and Ministry of Justice should take on the disparity in the severity of these criteria and the inequalities arising therefrom. The Ministry of Justice should take them into account when deliberating on the necessity for the compulsory labor system. Upon investigation and follow-up by the Control Yuan, the Ministry of Justice, in their proposed amendments, has considered taking “loitering or vagrancy” out of the Act. Juvenile Protection Cases 43. According to Article 19 of the Enforcement Rules for Examination of Juvenile Protection Cases promulgated by the Judicial Yuan in 2009, for minor-age youth cases which are submitted to an arbitration session instead of a formal trial, the transcript of the session may supersede a written ruling as a record of the judgment reached. This is done to implement tthe less-rigid arbitration mechanism, and it is considered to be made in good faith. However, Paragraph 2, Article 40 of the said Enforcement Rules makes the said practice applicable to major judgments in juvenile law cases that restrict personal freedom, including placement and reform education. As a result, taking the less burdensome path, most judges tend to provide a transcript rather than a written ruling. Thus, the facts and reasons are unclear in the simplified procedure, and one cannot guarantee that the judge has taken full care in the deliberation process. This flawed protection of the juvenile’s interests and rights fails to achieve the purpose of implementing arbitration. The Judicial Yuan in 2004 expressed the intent to review the format and content of the judgment records when amending the laws in the future. However, no concrete actions have been taken for the past 15 years. The Judicial Yuan has clearly failed to deal with the matter proactively. In February 2019, the Control Yuan completed an investigation on the matter, and based on the findings, requested the Judicial Yuan in writing to conduct a review. When the Legislative Yuan amended Paragraph 3, Article 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act in June 2019, the Judicial Yuan, in response to the significant amendments to the said Act, amended the relevant provisions of the Enforcement Rules for Examination of Juvenile Protection Cases, to improve application of the due process of law to juvenile cases. 44. The juvenile investigation officer’s pre-trial investigation is the central guide to judgment in juvenile protection cases. The investigation findings and suggestions serve as the basis and requirement for the judge reaching a judgment through arbitration. However, it was found that juvenile investigation officers of eight district courts, including the Taoyuan District 21