The J.Y. Interpretation No. 782 opined that the pension fund’s imbalance of the revenue and expenditure was caused partially by its failure to comply with the most ideal contribution rate proposed in the actuarial report and the decrease in payers resulted from low birth rates. However, this statement was inconsistent with the statistics attached as the Exhibit 6, demonstrating its unclear review of facts. Additionally, regarding the “shared contribution-based pension fund”, it interpreted the provision of “government will bear the final responsibility of guarantee” in the manner that allows reduction of retired public servants’ pension via law amendments to support the inadequate pension fund. However, this measure actually enabled the government to escape from its final responsibility of guaranteed payment while making public servants unilaterally responsible for the loss of pension fund, contradicting with such fund’s founding principle of “shared contribution”. Furthermore, the Interpretation reminded the relevant authority to adjust the pension reduction’s schedule and level as the said reduction may satisfy the reform purpose ahead of schedule, which already showed that the measure has exceeded the reasonable and necessary extent to achieve the purpose and therefore is not the least detrimental one. Nonetheless, the Interpretation still argued that it didn’t violate the principle of proportionality, and its discussion also conflicted with the Judicial Yuan’s practice when interpreting the foregoing principle. Hence, the above reasons may be used to apply for the “supplementary interpretation”.