相較於德國的強制起訴、日本的付審判程序有其演進背景及脈絡，我國於2002年增訂檢察官外部監督機制的交付審判，僅於立法理由交代參考德日法制，由於缺乏通盤檢討導致有法官預斷及違反控訴原則的疑慮。本文透過對德國強制起訴與日本付審判制度的介紹，除瞭解外國法的運作模式外，更爬梳運作所遭遇的困難，以作為我國法的借鏡。此外，本文藉由市民公訴權觀點，重新定義檢察官是基於公益代表人地位行使人民託付之公訴權，自須受人民的外部監督，基此觀點進一步討論、分析現行交付審判的制度問題，並提出修法建議作為結論。

Compared with the “Klageerzwingungsverfahren” in Germany and “Fushinpan” in Japan, having its own legislative background, Taiwan amending the law of “Setting for Trial” in 2002 which lacks comprehensive review, leading to violation of the principle of Accusation. First of all, This article introduces Germany’s “Klageerzwingungsverfahren” and Japan’s “Fushinpan” system. Secondly, in addition to understanding other countries’ mode, it also analyzes through the difficulties encountered in practice as the foundation of Taiwan lawmaking in the future. Finally, this article redefines the prosecutor as the status of public welfare representatives, subject to the people’s external supervision. Based on this viewpoint, we will discuss and analyze the current issues of the Setting for Trial, proposing amendments to the law as a conclusion.