Wu Jinzong (pictured), director of the Dounan Farmers Association, was dismissed for bribery, and the lawsuit to suspend execution was rejected.

(file photo)

[Reporter Yang Guowen/Taipei Report] Wu Jinzong, the director of the farmers association in Dounan Township, Yunlin County, was accused of bribery in the re-election of the farmers association last year. .

Wu Jinzong refused to accept the punishment of dismissal and applied for suspension of execution. The Taipei High Administrative Court considered that the application was groundless and ruled to reject it;

Wu Jinzong registered to run for the 19th director of the Dounan Town Farmers Association in Yunlin County on January 18, 2021, and was elected on March 2 of the same year.

Please read on...

However, the prosecution found that Wu Jinzong was suspected of bribery during the election process and violated the crime of delivering property under Article 47 of the Peasant Association Law, and was prosecuted by the prosecution.

The court found that Wu Jinzong was careless about violating the law for a while, and confessed to the crime during the investigation and trial, and also had remorse. He was sentenced to five months in prison for the crime of handing over property in accordance with the Agricultural Association Law, and was fined. He was probated for three years. The whole case was finalized in July last year. .

The Council of Agriculture, based on the prosecution's prosecution of Wu Jinzong for election bribery, dismissed Wu from his post as a director of the Dounan Town Farmers' Association in accordance with Article 46 of the Farmers' Association Law.

Wu Nan refused to accept and was dismissed, filed an administrative lawsuit and petitioned for suspension of execution. As for the litigation part of this case, it is under trial by the Taipei High Administrative Court.

Regarding the part of the application for suspension of execution, Wu Nan advocated that the punishment of dismissal is illegal.

Wu Nan pointed out that the Council of Agriculture had dismissed him on May 4 last year in accordance with Articles 46, 20, and 15 of the Farmers' Association Law before the verdict was finalized, and asked the Yunlin County Government to guide the farmers in Dounan Township. This dismissal is inconsistent with the Farmers’ Association Law and is clearly illegal. It will damage his reputation and reputation and infringe his personality rights. The execution of this dismissal should be suspended before the administrative litigation of this case is finalized.

The Taipei Higher Court found that the farmers' association is an important farmer's group in my country, entrusted by the government to implement a number of major agricultural policies such as public grain bribery, farmers' health insurance, and policy-based agricultural project loans, and the farmers' association's credit department is an agricultural financial institution franchised by the government. The business is a financial institution. Farmers' associations at all levels receive various subsidies from the Council of Agriculture and agricultural loan subsidies from the Ministry of Credit up to more than 4 billion yuan every year. The importance is self-evident.

Farmers’ association directors occupy a high position in the decision-making system, and their honesty, morality, and integrity are very important. If a briber covets the power and property of the farmer’s association, his entry into the decision-making system of the farmer’s association will not only affect the rights and interests of farmers, but also affect the reputation and integrity of the farmer’s association. It was seriously damaged and affected the fairness of the farmers' association elections. Obviously, it had a major impact on the public welfare order maintained by the farmers' association law-related membership representatives, directors and supervisors candidates. Therefore, this case did not meet the requirements for suspension of enforcement. Ruling dismissed.

Wu Nan refused to accept it and filed a protest.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the ruling of the Taipei High Administrative Court was not in error, and that there was no reason for Wu Nan's appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the case was finalized.