If, during the period the Ministry is dealing with an accreditation review case, the applicant is reported or found to be involved in any one of the circumstances listed below, and the matter has then been duly considered and confirmed by the Ministry, the accreditation shall be unqualified. From the date that such a decision is made, no application for a teacher’s accreditation review will be accepted for the period stipulated in the subparagraph below that pertains to the circumstances; if the period in which no application will be accepted is five years or longer, the Ministry shall at the same time send each institution of higher education a copy of the details of the case.
1. If the Teacher Accreditation Application and Resume Form or any co-author’s certification contains false information; if the representative work has not been truthfully documented as being co-authored and a co-author’s certification from each co-author was not submitted; if there are inappropriate citations; if materials have been republished without this having been indicated and authorized; if no indication is given that the content includes some already issued results or writing; or if any other matter constitutes a violation of academic ethics: from one to five years.
2. The writings, creative works, performances, and/or technical reports contain plagiarized components, false material, altered material, or constitute fraud: from five to seven years.
3. If any educational or professional credential documents, evidence of achievement, documentary evidence that academic writing will be issued by a journal within a fixed period, or any co-author’s certification has been forged, or altered, or any illegal or unscrupulous means have been used to influence a review of the applicant’s thesis : from seven to ten years.
4. If an applicant either personally or through another person makes any requests or lobbies on the applicant’s behalf, or offers any bribe or enticement or makes any threat, or in any other way interferes with any reviewer or accreditation review procedure and the circumstances are serious: from one to two years.
The associated review operations and determination criteria for each of the subparagraphs of the previous paragraph will be prescribed by the Ministry.
If the applicant is involved in two or more of conditions of Paragraph 1 at the same time, they will be subject to the provisions of the highest period of inadmissibility in each case.

If after their accreditation review is completed, a teacher is been reported as having committed or is found to have been involved in any one of the circumstances referred to in the subparagraphs of Paragraph 1 of the previous Article, and the case has been given due consideration and confirmed, the case shall be handled in the following ways:
1. If the application was approved after the accreditation review and a Teacher’s Accreditation Level Certificate was issued, the teacher’s accreditation for this level shall be revoked and the Teacher’s Accreditation Level Certificate shall be recovered, and the applicant shall be subject to the disciplinary action of not having any application for an accreditation review accepted for the appropriate period stipulated in the previous Article.
2. If the applicant’s accreditation was not approved after the review, the applicant shall be subject to the disciplinary action of not having any application for an accreditation review accepted for the appropriate period stipulated in of the previous Article.

If the applicant's representative work is found to have been submitted without proper citation, duplicated without notation, or without notation that part of its content is a published work or publication, plagiarism, forgery, falsification, fraud, or improperly influencing the review of a dissertation by illegal or improper means, or any other violation of academic ethics, and the following paragraphs are met, the applicant shall be exempted from the penalty of not accepting their application for accreditation as a teacher in accordance with the provisions of the preceding two Articles:
1. The work submitted for accreditation involves matters that are not part of the applicant's contribution, and the part of the contribution should be available for inspection and indicated before submission for accreditation.
2. Through professional peer investigation, it was determined that the subject matter of the submitted work was not part of the applicant's academic field of expertise.
3. Through professional peer investigation, it is determined that the applicant is not a significant author or project leader of the submitted work.
If the applicant's reference work is found to have one of the circumstances specified in the previous paragraph and meets the requirements of the previous Paragraph 1 and 2, the applicant shall be exempted from the penalty of not accepting their application for teacher accreditation in accordance with the provisions of the previous Article 2.
If the applicant's reference work is found to have one of the circumstances specified in the first preface and meets the provisions of the subparagraphs of paragraph 1, the following provisions may be followed after the exclusion of the reference work:
1. Cases under review: Renewal of Teacher Accreditation Review.
2. Qualified cases: If the case of an approved institution meets the requirements at the time of submission for review and the result of the external review after consideration by the institution's educational evaluation committee; if the case of a non-approved institution meets the requirements at the time of submission for review and the result of the external review after the institution's report to the Ministry, the applicant is exempted from the penalty of revocation of teaching accreditation in accordance with Paragraph 1 of the previous Article.

If an applicant has been reported as committing or found to be involved in any one of the circumstances referred to in the subparagraphs of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 after the Ministry has approved an accreditation, the institution shall report the facts that have been determined and the recommended disciplinary action to the Ministry for its review.
Before the institution sends a case to the Ministry for a review, or if an applicant at an approved institution（including any institution given partial approval）has been reported as committing or found to be involved in any of the circumstances referred to in any of the subparagraphs of Paragraph 1 of Article 44, during the accreditation review period or after the accreditation review is completed, the case shall, mutatis mutandis, be handled in accordance with the provisions of Article 44 to the previous Article, and for the associated period referred to in Article 44, beginning from the date that the institution-level teacher evaluation committee makes its determination, no application for a review and decision regarding that teacher’s accreditation will be dealt with. When a case has been duly considered and a confirmed determination made, the institution shall report the deliberation procedures and the disciplinary action taken to the Ministry for future reference.
If the Ministry finds that there is a suspicion of a violation of law or impropriety in the handling of cases involving the subparagraphs of Article 44, Paragraph 1, the Ministry shall make a specific determination and recommendation on the circumstances of the violation for the institution to proceed accordingly.
An applicant who has been reported as committing or found to be involved in any one of the circumstances referred to in any of the subparagraphs of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 is not permitted to apply to have their accreditation review case cancelled, and it shall continue being handled in accordance with the procedures.

After deciding in accordance with the provisions of the previous 4 paragraphs to take the disciplinary action of not handling any accreditation application, the Ministry shall inform the institution to handle the case in accordance with the related provisions of the Act and the related provisions of the Teachers’ Act.

If a teacher files an appeal with the appeal handling body or some other body to remedy the situation and the institution is asked to handle the case in accordance with the provisions of the relevant ordinances but still does not do so, if the same appeal handling body that received the teacher’s appeal or the remedy body determines that the institution is acting against the law, a higher level teacher evaluation committee may re-conduct the review procedures in accordance with the regulations from the stage when the review procedures should be reopened. If an institution level teacher evaluation committee fails to handle the case in accordance with the relevant ordinances governing such reviews, the Ministry shall order the institution to complete corrective action within a specified time. If the required corrective action is not satisfactorily completed within the specified time the institution shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 50, and the institution shall also formulate some other legally appropriate mechanism for handling cases and incorporate that mechanism into the institution’s rules and publicly announce this.
If a particular teacher at an institution has filed two or more appeals regarding the same case, and the appeal handling body or the remedy body determined each time that the institution is acting against the law, the teacher may apply to the Ministry for an external review. If the Ministry determines that it is necessary, the Ministry may commission an external review body to conduct the review of the academic writing, creative works, evidence of achievement, or technical reports to undertake this review procedure externally instead of it being done by the institution.

The Ministry may regularly assess institutions’ conduct of teacher accreditation reviews.
If an institution does not carry out an accreditation review in accordance with the relevant provisions or fails to complete corrective action within the specified time referred to in Paragraph 1 of the previous article, the matter shall be taken into consideration when the institution is undergoing evaluation, and/or lead to a one-off or permanent reduction of incentives（subsidies）, and the personnel who are to be held responsible shall be investigated.
If the circumstances referred to in the provisions of the previous paragraph occur in an approved institution（including any institution given partial approval）and it fails to complete corrective action within a specified time, the Ministry may partially or fully revoke the institution’s approval and shall make this publicly known.

An institution shall apply the provisions that were in place before these amendments took effect when it handles a case which has passed a qualified teacher accreditation review conducted by the lowest level teacher evaluation committee before the amendments to these Regulations take effect.

These Regulations shall take effect on the date of its promulgation, except for Paragraph 3 of Article 30, and Paragraph 3 of Article 31, which shall take effect on February 1, 2023.