While the people shall have the right of instituting legal proceedings under Article 16 of the Constitution, the manner of conducting the litigation shall be specifically prescribed by law. This concept has been clearly expounded in our Interpretation No. 170. A criminal proceeding is a procedure by which the power of criminal punishment of the State may be enforced. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides in Article 228, Paragraph 1, that "if a prosecutor, because of complaint, information, voluntary surrender, or other reasons, knows there is suspicion of an offense having been committed, he shall immediately begin an investigation." Additionally, Article 251, Paragraph 1, of the Code provides that "if a prosecutor obtains during investigation sufficient evidence to make him believe that an accused is suspected of having committed an offense, he shall institute a public prosecution." By these provisions the Act has thus established the public prosecution system, whereby the prosecutor is charged with the duty to prosecute criminal offenses, and a person injured by an act of offense may file a complaint with the prosecutor to enable him to conduct an investigation and institute prosecution by due process of law. The Act further allows private prosecution by providing in Article 319 that "a person injured by an act of offense may institute a private prosecution." In the article cited above, "a person injured by an act of offense" refers to a person who is directly injured by a criminal act. However, in a case where the national or social interest and the personal interest are injured by a criminal act, the law does not define the condition in which an individual victim will be considered a person within the meaning of being directly injured. The issue is then left to the discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case to determine based on the facts of the particular criminal act. Where the provisions in respect to private prosecution are found inapplicable, the case will naturally be subject to public prosecution under provisions applicable thereto. In this way, the enforcement of the State*s power of criminal punishment is not harmed, nor does it give rise to the problem of the right of instituting legal proceedings being limited. Thus, the Supreme Court decision No. Tai-shang Tze 1799 (1981) is not inconsistent with the Constitution in holding that "in the present case where the Appellant brought a private prosecution against the accused who was suspected of having committed the offense under the Criminal Code of a public official seeking to profit from his function, the interest protected by law includes the loyalty of public functionaries in serving the nation and the national interest. Although the crime does result in a certain impact on personal rights and interests, the party directly injured is the State rather than any individual. Although the Appellant has suffered injury from the act of the accused, the injury is indirect, not direct. Accordingly, no private prosecution is allowed." Nevertheless, we have to point out here that the circumstances in which a person injured by a criminal act may institute private prosecution must be carefully reviewed and clearly specified.