The Taipei District Court judge believed that the criminal suspicion was indeed insufficient and dismissed Wu's claim for confirmation.

(file photo)

[Reporter Zhang Wenchuan/Taipei Report] When police officer Wu surnamed in Taipei lived in the police dormitory on Linyi Street two years ago, he kept more than 30 beetles in the dormitory with high specifications. The electricity bills doubled, and the hens crawled everywhere. The two roommates' persuasion was ineffective. They submitted a complaint to the director through the police mailbox. The police held a meeting and decided to withdraw Wu from the dormitory, but Wu sued the roommate, dormitory officer, inspector, The logistics section chief and other seven officers and policemen were involved in crimes such as damage to reputation and confidentiality. After the prosecution decided not to prosecute, Wu did not give up and applied to the court for trial. The Taipei District Court judge believed that the criminal suspicion was indeed insufficient and dismissed the request for confirmation.

The judgment pointed out that since May 2020, Mr. Wu has been raising beetles in his assigned duty dormitory, which has affected the living quality of his roommates and the dormitory, causing troubles in the life of his roommates and concerns about hygiene. He even has to turn on the air conditioner when he goes out to work. , the special refrigerator also consumes a lot of electricity, resulting in excessive electricity consumption in the dormitory, and the electricity bill more than doubled. The two roommates Cai and Wang failed to communicate with him. In July of the same year, they reported to the dormitory management team leader. The team leader's persuasion was also ineffective. Recorded, submitted to the police commissioner's mailbox in November of the same year.

Please read on...

On November 25th of the previous year, the Chief Logistics Officer of the Police Department presided over a meeting on the management of the dormitory borrowers in the duty dormitory to discuss the beetle incident. The two roommates presented video and audio evidence on the spot, describing the situation of Wu’s raising insects and the trouble it caused to life. The meeting ended in the end. It was found that Member Wu violated the dormitory life contract, and it was decided to let Member Wu move out of the dormitory.

After member Wu was tragically withdrawn from the dormitory, he believed that the package sent to him had been stolen, and the room was photographed secretly. Police officers and 7 persons surnamed Wu from the Legal Affairs Office were charged with aggravating defamation, coercion, obstructing the secret of correspondence, and stealing other people's non-public activities.

2 The roommates argued that they did not open the package and did not steal the records. It was Mr. Wu who dismantled it and put it in the public area, so that the hens and worms in the package were crawling around; the dormitory life agreement stipulates that no pets, including beetles, are allowed. , they took pictures in the public area to search for evidence, and recorded the recorded conversations during the communication, so as to report the handling to the logistics team. Each person is divided, and Wu is not required to pay half of the electricity bill.

After investigation, the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office determined that Wu was disqualified for violating the dormitory regulations. The object of the Chen Qing letter was the director, not an open letter, and there was no evidence that the roommate and the director-general secretly opened the letter or recorded it. Insufficient, in June last year, all seven people were punished without prosecution.

Wu's reconsideration was also rejected by the High Procuratorate, and Wu Zai applied to the North Court for trial.

The collegial panel of the North Court held that the prosecution's non-prosecution, dismissal for reconsideration, etc., were based on the fact-finding procedure and the evaluation and determination after the relevant evidence, and neither violated the law nor violated the rules of experience, reasoning, evidence, etc., and has been detailed. On the grounds that the statement did not constitute a crime, Wu's accusation was groundless and obviously wrong, so Wu's claim was rejected for confirmation.