Taiwan presidents majored in LAW should be ashamed of the image of Taiwan judicial systems
Case study - public insult & criminal intimidation
pic. right: "No.1 "Taiwan crime of public insult" on Yahoo, 12-21-2020
pic. left: No.1 "crime of public insult in Taiwan" on Bing, 12-21-2020
WHAT did prosecutor and police say ?
the complainant's view
|1. The police station spoke to the victim (complainant) reporting the case that the chief or the residents' committee for our building should be the right one to bring the law-suit to the court because the dirt and oil were splashed mainly to the corridor, a property of the building, not of mine.||Obviously, those police have not correct legal knowledge, because the suspect has been public-insulting against the particular resident. If someone spits ptysis at front of you and the mouth water down on the street in Taipei , only the Taipei city hall owning the ground at front of you is entitled to bring a suit for being insulted ?|
prosecutor office refused to conduct any investigation to arrest the
suspects and jumped to an
|It's very questionable to close the case without opening a court session to review the proofs.|
|3. The victim brought a suit again, but the prosecutor office and police station said they can't catch the suspect(s).|| Recently,
there're many similar cases in Hong Kong, their police considered those
cases seriously, and conducted investigations very soon, even some victims chose
low-profile - refusing to bring a suit to the courthouse, besides,
those HK cases were reported by media in HK, US, Canada etc.
The Taiwanese victim told prosecutor that the case suppose is politics-related too, and suppose will catch a "chain gang" with, probably, some top politicians. But it seemed to be a failure in here.
pic.: Recently, there're many similar cases in Hong Kong, their police considered those cases seriously, and did investigations soon even some victims chose low-profile - didn't bring a suit to the courthouse. The picture above is one case among them being reported by TV media.
After the complainant brought a suit again, Taipei prosecutor opened a court session, and
asked victim some questions below:
(1) The case was already closed in last time, why did you suit it again?
(2) Why are splashing dirt to your house and damaging your house's wall a crime of public insult and criminal intimidation ?
(3) Who are the suspects ?
(4) Your monitor camera got some evidences ?
(1) If it is not within reason, there will be no court session today.
(2) Just like the suspects splash dirt and oil to you and cut prosecutor's clothes, these certainly are crimes.
(3) I do not run detective business, how can I solve the case ? not to mention this most likely is political case.
(4) No ( but the prosecutor and police should be easy to know the monitor camera is nothing but an off-line scarecrow ! )
Taipei prosecutor office again close the case, because:
(1) There's no evidence showing the janitor and Executive Secretary or Director General splashed dirt.
(2) The behaviour (act) being accused is 『nothing to do with 』crime.
Compared with Hong Kong police, Taiwan prosecutor and police seemed
to be incapable and less enthusiastic
to find out the truth。
(2) The janitor and Executive Secretary or Director General are obligated to actively clean the corridor, because that's why they got salary for, intentionally ignoring what happened (ps: Sept 2019 ~ Sept 2020) certainly is a crime of omission, and most likely they are the prime suspects or collusion accomplices, co-conspirators, or hired thugs.. Lasting for so many months make them the criminal liability of recidivists, a even more serious crime. For legal details pls. read as below:
Brief of the Criminal Complaint document
"A" posted bad words on the net to public insult "C", and then "B" (
platform manager ) put off to delete those defamation words ...
The courthouses have never judged those public insults as legal behaviors.
A legal precedent
Supreme Court : If the
something in some specific situation
as expected, hence causing something bad not to happen, the
acting so" is
Elements of Criminal Law.
The complainant's DVD shows it is easy to clean the dirt, probably only take 3 minutes to wipe all out. The DVD also shows the complainant reminded the janitor and Executive Secretary of cleaning the floor for more than one time, but nothing has changed. Both of them have the duty to do it, but intentionally ignored it, therefore it is causation。
|the complainant：||Chief ?|
|the accused：||Oh ~ this is Executive Secretary|
|the complainant：||the floor at front of my room No. 1XX7 has lots of dirt, which have not been cleaned at all since last year|
|the accused：||1XX7 ~|
|the complainant：||lots of dirt occupied all floor at front of my door, cannot clean it ?|
|the accused：||I can't do it|
|the complainant：||can not ? it's been a long long time ~ up to 5 months|
|the accused：||no !!|
|刑事告訴狀 摘要 (in Chinese)
一、香港近頻發生類似潑污或淋油案例，都獲得港警重視及嚴查，並為港台美加之中英文媒體及網路所報導，迅速被逮捕的台灣嫌犯同夥面臨violence,public insult, damage等刑罪起訴，也有的案件當事人低調不告，媒體仍作報導、港警仍迅速處理。台灣警察大學公安教授在電視指責反送中港人來台也被潑漆，可見以此類手法，已不僅是俗話土話、而且是國際語言、明顯的惡意犯罪，意圖傳遞恐嚇侮辱訊息; 則本案豈該大事化小、草草結案?
二、被告至少觸犯公然侮辱妨害名譽、暴力恐嚇等罪， 台灣苗栗地方法院91易字564判決:「稱侮辱者係指以輕蔑使人難堪之言語舉動或他法，對於該員為侮辱 而言」。臺北地方法院刑事判決103年度審易字第1660號明載，刑法第309條第1項公然侮辱罪，係指對人詈罵、嘲笑、侮蔑，其方法並無限制，不問以文字、言詞、態度、舉動，只須以公然方式為之，而足使他人在精神上、心理上有感受難堪或不快之虞，足以減損特定人之聲譽、人格及社會評價即足（司法院院解字第3806號反面解釋參照） 。 恐嚇之方法以言詞、文字(如匿名信)、舉動為之,均無不可,其屬直接通知或間接通知均可,只須使被害人知悉為已足。 因地板油滑可導致老人摔跌，應連同考量觸犯預謀傷害或殺人罪。
四、經查法院近年裁判書，即便被告並非始作甬犯行者，仍屬不作為犯，不作為犯之範圍不限於傷害殺人等罪，從積極作為或消極不作為之方式進入他人住宅或建築物，到消極之不作為致使教學無效，都被判決不作為犯罪，未見法官裁決不作為犯與犯罪無關者，睽諸判決: A在黑板書寫侮辱文字，應該擦拭黑板的B卻故意拖延一月不擦拭; A在網路張貼侮辱文字，B(版主或管理者)拖延不刪除系爭文字; A面臨同學指摘時，不斷表達道歉，被上訴人B未給予上訴人適時協助之不作為;電視節目來賓妨害名譽，主持人不作為未作阻止，但該段內容刪除不播出; ...等等皆是。
pic.: The sites-group was
ranked No.1 "Taiwan's prosecutors" on Baidu of China, 11-11-2020
pic.: The sites-group was ranked No.1 "Taiwan's prosecutors" on Bing, 11-11-2020
pic.: The sites-group was ranked No.1 "comment Taiwan prosecutors" on Google, 1-26-2020
★ comment Taiwan judicial system
Int'l & local Institutions
reviews & comments
|Some political commentators and academics, publicly questioned the impartiality of judges and prosecutors involved in high profile, politically sensitive cases. Judicial reform advocates pressed for greater public accountability, reforms of the personnel system, and other procedural improvements|
|( Avoid judicial monsters The main reason that the public do not trust the justice is lacking of 外部監督力量) and hence quite many controversial legal judgments were out there|
|Taiwan's judiciary spends lots of money on advertising themselves, but, the truth us Taiwan's justice always made a detour whenever encountering the power and the rich people. (司法砸錢宣傳 遇權貴卻轉彎) The Supreme Court (最高法院大法庭) has many cases to solve, but no one wants to touch sensitive issues.|
|United Daily 7-14 https://udn.com/news/story/7339/4699302||Taiwan's president has never talked about anti-corruption, in recent years, the prosecutors and investigation gov. have not solved any big corruption cases, unlike lots of crack-downs in old days, instead, they focus on New National Security cases. No wonder Taiwan president insists abolishing Special Investigation Division (SPD) .|
中時||The public trust on Taiwan's prosecutors was suffered severe injuries from the Minister's "guides" and "leads" (部長下指導棋重傷檢察公信力)|
|The ruling party DPP has been 立法、執法上不斷加強對人民的監控，司法不斷被質疑淪為掌權者工具， 司法改革卻是人民最不滿意的重中之重 ) their political opponents 過去四年許多作為卻比過去威權更威權，|
|Liberty Times||劍青檢改：Taiwan's Control Yuan was reduced to political "hit-man".|
|scandals in judicial circle again and again|
|United Daily 5-20-2019||
How long can Taiwan judiciary stand being lynched and tortured ? ( 司法還能忍受多久的凌遲？) The Control Yuan (監察院) and the Prime Ministry (行政院) repeatedly have taken judiciary as sacrifice-offering (司法當祭品)
|Liberty Times||Taiwan's prosecutors should not be haughty, arrogant and condescending to make themselves "superior or powerful". Enforcement officers should have empathy in mind and being humble.|