The Ministry of National Defense's Litigation Scorecard? Indict Ch'en Chao-min! Seek Compensation for the Wrongful Execution! ~ Press Release and Post-Judgment Statement
Last edited: 2026-07-27
Post-Judgment Statement
Regarding today's (the 29th) civil judgment on the Ministry of National Defense's claim for compensation in the Chiang Kuo-ch'ing case against Ch'en Chao-min and others, this Foundation makes the following statement:
1. The judgment is divided into four parts, holding the military officers accountable:
- Regarding Ch'en Chao-min and K'o Chung-ch'ing: Both lost their case entirely and are each ordered to compensate 14,740,714 NTD.
- Regarding Ho Tsu-yao and Ts'ao Chia-sheng: Both won in part and lost in part, and are each ordered to compensate 8,598,750 NTD.
- Regarding Li Chih-jen: Lost almost entirely, and is ordered to compensate 12,898,125 NTD, limited to the scope of his inheritance.
- Regarding Huang Jui-p'eng: Won entirely. The court exempted him from liability pursuant to Article 13 of the State Compensation Act.
2. Statement on the Judgment:
- High praise for the Taipei District Court's judgment:
- This case was "congenitally deficient"; leaving aside the division and equal allocation of liabilities upon indictment, during the litigation, the Ministry of National Defense seemed unable to be "overly proactive." The outcome relied entirely on the judge's meticulous clarification of the facts, investigation of evidence, and application of the law.
- The court held that: Ch'en Chao-min bears 1/3 of the liability, K'o Chung-ch'ing bears 1/4, Ho Tsu-yao bears 1/12, Ts'ao Chia-sheng bears 1/12, and Li Chih-jen bears 1/8. As for Teng Chen-huan, who was not indicted, he bears 1/8 of the liability.
- The Ministry of National Defense must still "make things clear and explicit" and not play "fudge":
- Cease indicting with equally divided liability: The court held that Ch'en Chao-min should bear 1/3 of the liability, which amounts to 34,395,000 NTD, and K'o Chung-ch'ing should bear 1/4 of the liability, which amounts to 25,796,250 NTD. However, the Ministry of National Defense only indicted them for 14,740,714 NTD. If no additional appeal is filed in the future, wouldn't this be a disguised transfer of liability to others? Are citizens' tax dollars just going to "vanish with the wind" like this?
- Subsequent handling of Teng Chen-huan's portion: According to the Ministry of National Defense's original argument, after splitting and dividing equally, everyone's liability was 14,740,714 NTD. Yet, it settled with Teng Chen-huan for merely 2.8 million NTD. Why was the settlement reached at a ratio of only about 20%, and who should bear the remaining 80% of the liability? Should the Ministry of National Defense be responsible, or should others shoulder it? The Ministry of National Defense has a responsibility to explain this clearly to the public.
Although Chiang Kuo-ch'ing has been cleared, he has yet to be truly vindicated. We demand that the state courageously confront its own mistakes and hold illegal and derelict military officers such as Ch'en Chao-min criminally and civilly liable. Indict Ch'en Chao-min and others! Seek compensation for the wrongful payment! State accountability! We care!
Regarding criminal accountability, after the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office revoked the Taipei District Prosecutors Office's second non-prosecution disposition and remanded the case in mid-December 2012, a year and a half has passed without any movement from the Taipei District Prosecutors Office.
Regarding civil accountability, after paying over 100 million NTD in criminal compensation for the Chiang Kuo-ch'ing case, the Ministry of National Defense sought compensation from the civil servants who acted illegally and derelictly. From the first hearing of the compensation lawsuit on September 4, 2012, to April 23, 2014, a total of 12 hearings were held (please refer to the appendix for details). From the very beginning, the judge repeatedly questioned the Ministry of National Defense; although given ample time, their preparation remained insufficient.
I recall that on October 17, 2012, the Foreign and National Defense Committee of the Legislative Yuan requested the Ministry of National Defense to make a special report on holding accountable and seeking compensation for the wrongful execution case of Chiang Kuo-ch'ing. During the session, cross-party legislators questioned whether the Ministry of National Defense had the will to win the lawsuit. Former Minister Kao Hua-chu explicitly stated during interpellation that he had instructed the engagement of external lawyers to strengthen the legal team and make every effort to win the compensation lawsuit.
However, those words still echo in our ears, yet the Ministry of National Defense merely hired one additional lawyer. The leadership of the litigation remained primarily in the hands of the career military judges within the ministry; although their performance turned more proactive, it frequently gave the impression of failing to fully prepare, and relevant evidence or legal opinions were often presented only when proactively probed by the judge.
Frankly speaking, during the trial, both parties often talked past each other and failed to focus effectively. The litigation attack strategy of the Ministry of National Defense was truly mediocre, making it impossible to hold high expectations for a total victory by the ministry.
Regardless, we hope that the 100 million NTD compensation already paid by the Ministry of National Defense will not be borne by the general public. As the judgment is about to be delivered today, let us care together about how the Ministry of National Defense's scorecard for the civil compensation lawsuit turns out!
| Hearing Session | Date | Hearing Proceedings | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012/04/12 | Formal indictment | ||
| 1st | 2012/09/24 | The judge questioned the Ministry of National Defense, stating that the argumentation in the indictment content was overly concise. | |
| 2012/10/17 | Former Minister Kao Hua-chu delivered a special report on the Chiang Kuo-ch'ing case at the Legislative Yuan, emphasizing that he would "exhaust all proactive litigation measures and strive to win the lawsuit to meet public expectations." | Continued public attention | |
| 2nd | 2012/11/21 | Engaged one external lawyer. The Ministry of National Defense's courtroom performance turned more proactive, but still failed to clarify the legal elements, showing no sign of the possibility of winning. | |
| 3rd | 2013/01/16 | The Ministry of National Defense still failed to clarify the claims and the legal relationships therein, and the judge's helplessness was palpable. After three hearings, the Ministry of National Defense still could not even articulate the legal relationship clearly, performing another "off-target" act. | |
| 4th | 2013/03/13 | The Ministry of National Defense failed to promise service of the preparatory briefs to the court and the defendants, resulting in both parties being unable to prepare in advance for the fourth hearing. The judge further sharply rebuked the Ministry of National Defense's delay, rendering this hearing practically devoid of substance. | |
| 5th | 2013/05/01 | Began sorting out the "undisputed points" and "disputed points" of this case, requiring both parties to express their opinions through briefs first. | One full year since trial commenced |
| 6th | 2013/06/26 | Empty hearing. The Ministry of National Defense failed to submit briefs on time, leaving the opposing party unprepared and making it impossible to hold the hearing. | |
| 7th | 2013/08/02 | Began trying points 1-3 of the first major disputed issue: whether the erroneous imprisonment compensation act or criminal compensation act should apply to this case, the scope of "civil servants," and whether there was intent or gross negligence. | |
| 8th | 2013/09/18 | Continued trying points 4-5 of the first major disputed issue: what the contents of the compensation already paid in this case are, and whether there is a causal relationship between the defendants' actions and the occurrence of compensation. | |
| 9th | 2013/11/06 | Began comprehensive trial of the ambiguous parts of the aforementioned disputed issues. Both parties talked past each other and could not focus effectively. | |
| 10th | 2013/12/25 | Continued trying point 6 of the first major disputed issue: whether Article 34, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Compensation Act includes Article 13 of the State Compensation Act? Began trying the second major disputed issue: since the victim did not seek compensation under the State Compensation Act, can the Ministry of National Defense claim compensation pursuant to the State Compensation Act? Third major disputed issue: has the right of claim been extinguished due to the lapse of the statute of limitations? | |
| 11th | 2014/02/26 | Why was the claimed compensation amount apportioned equally? How should it be apportioned appropriately? | |
| 12th | 2014/04/23 | After the judge supplemented inquiries on certain details, the judge proceeded to ask why interest began to accrue from November 29, 2011, rather than after the indictment? | Two full years since trial commenced |
| 13th | 2014/05/29 | First-instance judgment delivered |
Press Contact
Attorney Kao Jung-chih 02-2523-1178
This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.