In legal practice, it is controversial whether injury from the act of bravery can be integrated into work-related injuries. In the case of ambiguous legal provisions, the case No. 94, using the interpretation of purpose and system, regards the injury from the act of bravery, i.e. the injury caused by the suppression of criminal activities, as work injuries. However, the relationship between the scope of the referee's keynote and the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Work Injury Insurance Regulations still needs to be clarified. While the provisions of the Regulations should be limited to the immediate danger for maintaining the public interest, the behavior of the referee in this case should be "when the employees are willing to act in a courageous manner, in order to stop the public interest from being exposed to urgent and dangerous criminal acts, they are treated as the same as the work-related injury situation". Taking the act of rescue and disaster relief as the reference object, the provision of the act of bravery is consistent with the above article, as the scope of the referee's purpose is "the urgent behavior that the public interest is protected." Therefore, the injury from saving people courageously can be treated the same as work-related injury. Finally, factors of social effects need to be taken into account in the process of interpretation.