Attorney General Xing Taizhao.

(file photo)

[Reporter Wang Dingchuan/Taipei Report] Weng Maozhong, chairman of Jiahe Industrial Co., Ltd., was exposed to improper contacts with a number of judicial officials and police officials, and the fairness of his judicial case was questioned. Therefore, the manager Zhu Qingen’s application to the High Court for retrial of the “forgery of certificate of deposit” was rejected and confirmed; the Chief Prosecutor Xing Taizhao thought after deliberation that the Supreme Court’s judgment of not accepting it was an invalid judgment that seriously violated the law, and it was not enough to grant relief. To protect human rights, an extraordinary appeal was filed with the Supreme Court today in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law.

In June 2000, the Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office sued Zhu Qingen for violating forged documents and commercial accounting laws. The Taipei District Court of the first instance was acquitted. Suspended for 3 years, the Chamber of Commerce found him not guilty; Zhu Qingen appealed on his own, and the prosecution also appealed against the part of the acquittal, but Zhu Qingen died on May 24, 2003 during the trial, and the Supreme Court dismissed the prosecution's appeal in August of the same year. The judgment was dismissed and Zhu Qingen's appeal was rejected.

Please read on...

The High Prosecutor’s Office first applied to the High Court for retrial last year in an attempt to rehabilitate Zhu Qingen’s forgery of documents during his lifetime, but the High Court considered the prosecution’s petition to be illegal and rejected the petition. Denied in March.

The Supreme Prosecutor's Office stated today that the appeal by the prosecutors of the High Prosecutor's Office was initiated based on Zhu Qingen's petition and for the benefit of Zhu Qingen. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, no appeal is allowed, and the prosecutor’s appeal was illegal. The Supreme Court mistakenly dismissed the judgment as an invalid judgment that violated the law.

Second, on the one hand, the original decision dismissed Zhu Qingen's appeal on the grounds that it was illegal, but on the other hand, it held that the prosecutor's appeal was legal, and on the grounds of Zhu Qingen's death, the judgment was dismissed, which violated the "same thing". shall be treated in the same way”, and those with contradictory grounds for judgment violate the law.

Third, before his death, Zhu Qingen and his spouse have repeatedly expressed to the High Prosecutor's Office and the Supreme Court their earnest hope for an acquittal, and Zhu Qingen's spouse even expressed their agreement to the Supreme Prosecutor's Office to file an extraordinary appeal In other words, the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate and reject the verdict has hindered Zhu Qingen’s interest in appealing for a retrial to redress his injustice, making it impossible for Zhu Qingen and his family’s personality and reputation damage due to the guilty verdict to be rehabilitated and rehabilitated. To make up for the violation of the people's human dignity and personality rights stipulated in the Constitution, without relief, it is not enough to protect human rights, and it is necessary to file an extraordinary appeal.