我國現行新修正之刑法雖有教唆犯及幫助犯之規定，惟均無間接教唆犯（共犯）及再間接教唆犯（共犯）之規定，則再間接教唆犯有無可罰性？如有可罰性，理由為何？又該如何處罰？本文透過比較法（主要為日本）及我國法加以探討，並提出筆者之意見。惟實務上曾有再間接教唆犯之判決，此係因無明文規定必要，或明文規定有窒礙難行，抑或立法有掛一漏萬之弊，實有研究必要。究該如何適用始合法允當，俾符法理？國內相關之專文探討較少，是透過比較法及法學研究方法深究再間接教唆犯之可罰性及如何處罰。再間接教唆犯二種再間接共犯有無可罰性及如何處罰；次就新修正刑法總則對再間接幫助犯、再間接教唆犯二種再間接共犯有無影響予以探討。

There are regulations of instigator and of the person who assists another
person to commit an offense in our latest criminal law. However, there are
no regulations about indirect instigator and about indirect instigator of an instigator. Is the indirect instigator of an instigator punishable? If the answer is "yes", we would like to know the reason and the way to punish him or her. This essay tries to probe into this issue by using the comparative method between different laws (especially the law of our country and of Japan) and bring up the author's opinion.Yet in our practical practice, there are ever the judgments about the indirect instigator of an instigator. It is necessary to research the reason
behind this phenomenon. The author would like to know what the appropriate
way to explain the phenomenon is, in order to correspond to the legal principe.Because there are few essays discussing this part domestically, the author tries to use the comparative method between different laws and the legal reserach method to probe into that if the indirect accomplice punishable or not and that how to punish him or her.