When reviewing the constitutionality of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of theAdministrative Penalty Act, it is necessary to include Paragraph 3 and 4 into the reviewdue to their substantial relation. However, for an illegal act, legislators are entitled to thescope of legislative discretion and can freely decide the type and frequency of penalty,which should be respected by the constitutional interpreters. Thus, the J.Y. InterpretationNo.751 adopted a low standard of review. Yet, it remains unsettled whether to apply theprinciple of proportionality or the principle of double jeopardy since these two principlesare similar to the extent of preventing excessive or repeated penalty. The core matter isthe comprehensiveness of reasoning, which is inadequate in the foregoing J.Y.Interpretation. If we choose to apply the principle of double jeopardy, the deferredprosecution and affiliated burdens under Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be defined as“penalty” and whether the penalty is criminal or administrative is within legislators’discretion. Therefore, when applying an administrative penalty after applying a deferredprosecution and affiliated burdens for an illegal act, due to Paragraph 3 and 4, Paragraph2 per se will not constitute double punishment. In addition, because the affiliated burdensand the administrative penalty have different purposes, essences or types, the principle ofdouble jeopardy is not violated as well.