★ The defendant (accused), a server of Taiwan's 5 star American brand hotel restaurant, repeatedly sniffed loudly at two victims (customers) in public while bringing a check them.   According to dictionary of Oxford, Cambridge,  Collins,Dr. eye, Dict.site and best Chinese dictionaries, "sniff at " expresses "contempt", and according to New York Times, Forbes, etc,  there's no way this will happen in world famous 5 star hotel restaurant or even in an average restaurant,  not to mention Taiwan was a "country of etiquette", therefore, it should be an intentional offense against reputation ( public insult, defamation or deliberate humiliation), most likely on political purpose.    

The argument earlier by the defendant about "sniff repeatedly at" customers is due to having a cold.   But on the Police Interrogation Transcript the defendant 'forgot' that and changed the excuse to be an " allergy".  (I'm sure the defendant did the crime intentionally, and she won't take a lie-detector test). 

Ignoring witness testament (testify the crime) and other evidences, without summoning the defendant to the court, the chief prosecutor and two prosecutors concluded the criminal case "not to prosecuted" merely by looking at the defendant's facial appearance (a one-second smile) showing on the DVD.    

But ――  this short video image was taped by the victim about 15 minutes after the crime was committed.  The suspect's mood is different.

★ The mistakes that Taiwan's prosecutors made :

(1) Mistake 1 :  Chief prosecutor's and 2 prosecutors' inner conviction (doctrine of discretional evaluation of evidence) seems ridiculous !  
                         The facial expression now, might not be the same as that of 15 minutes ago.

(2) Mistake 2 :  A smile for one second can not prove innocence.   Lots criminals in Taiwan were making crimes with a smiling face (pls. see justice files below).

(3) Mistake 3 :  there're many different kinds of smiles, the defendant is a server in  5 star hotel restaurant, certainly wears an occupational fake smile all the time.    Besides, if a crime happens not for resentment or enmity, the victimizer ( probably just a tool or dog following political orders and knowing not too much ) won't show a hostile look. 

(4) Mistake 4 :  facial expression can be fake or be different by persons

     1.  Most major media reported at 3-20-2017 that Taiwan police conducted a routine check on the street, and got a suspect merely by his facial appearance ( probable strange light or mysterious gleam in the eyes), however, the "suspect" is a secretary of the state (cabinet minister of Taiwan).   Major media and a political party criticized Taiwan state apparatus should follow objective facts, evidences, not by their "experiences" or "inner conviction" (doctrine of discretional evaluation of evidence). 

     2.  Newsweek and New York Post reported at 9-7-2018 that the US regularly conducts lie detector tests on CIA, FBI etc 16 institutions, but similar polygraph machine functioned bad again and again in Taiwan because of human factors ―― subjective judgments, the polygraph test usually takes 38 ~ 130 minutes, one test (羅明村案) taking 9 minutes less resulted in a terrible mistake.   In contrast, the chief prosecutor and 2 prosecutors took only one second to subjectively concluded criminal case, if they really have this kind of magic "extra-sensory perception" , US president D. Trump will be happy to hire them with high pay to replace the lie detector machine, the saving costs can build a US-Mexico border wall.

     3.  It's easy to find some legal cases, e.g., Taipei court judgment (台北地院刑事判決99年易字3542號), that the criminal faked his facial expressions on the face of experts.

     4.   Not only criminals faked facial expressions, United Daily reported former president Chiang Kai-Shek (蔣中正) showed a very sad look on the memorial ceremony of Bai Chon-Xi (白崇禧), his political rival, but in the next day Chiang scolded severely Bai "the biggest guilty general for the loss of Chinese Civil War" .

(5) Mistake 5 :  According to DVDs (both April 2018 and June 2018), the defendant twice admitted sniffing at victim for having a cold, but later in police station changed the previous phrase to "it's for allergy".   Inconsistent statements prove the defendant to be a liar.      In any 5 star restaurants, the server should rest at home or have a mask on the face if having a bad illness, but the server did nothing, if it's not that bad, the server won't sniffed at victim repeatedly and loudly about once per one second for a long time (for the victim).   The prosecutors have not investigated the server's medical records.

(6) Mistake 6 :   The server studied in best dining & tourism university, and had working experience in another well-known hotel, how come has no basic knowledge or common sense the server should not sniff loudly at any customer, besides, the defendant asked and cashed infinite credit card from the victim too early - about 45 minutes after the restaurant opened.   This never happened in Euro., the US, other Asian countries , as well as Taiwan's other 5 star hotels I've been, e.g., Mandarin Oriental ... An article about rules for restaurants in The New York Times,  10-29-2009: " Never bring a check until someone asks for it".

(7) Mistake 7 :   There're some other similar or same actions (sniff) in the 5 star hotel and other places (including gov.) against the victim, a foreigner testified this at the police station and another suit case was brought to the court already.   Does any one believe more than one server in world famous hotel restaurant repeatedly sniffed at customers?

This case, most likely, is part of an accomplice structure, or systematic crimes, political oppressions upon me.  Particularly the crime scene is a widely known landmark of White-Terror era.    It's very ironic if any today's high-ranking power trying to advocate transitional justice on one hand, but  to politicize a legal case on the other hand.