1996 Questionnaire Survey Report on the Prosecutors Office of the Taipei District Prosecutors Office

I. Introduction

1. Background
   To promote judicial reform through empirical methods, the Judicial Reform Foundation conducted a series of empirical investigations, including courtroom observations, legislator questionnaires, and attorney questionnaires. Regarding prosecutors' offices, due to the principle of non-publicity of investigations, public attendance and observation are not permitted. Therefore, the Foundation conducted a random questionnaire survey specifically targeting citizens waiting outside or having completed their sessions at the prosecutors' offices of the Taipei District Prosecutors Office. In addition, the Ministry of Justice conducted a similar survey in February 1996; the results of this survey will be compared and analyzed alongside it to understand the general public's perceptions of the prosecutors' offices of the district prosecutors' offices.
   
2. Survey Methodology
   The design of this questionnaire was modified from the questionnaire used in the Ministry of Justice's survey. Questions concerning questioning attitude, questioning duration, diligence and thoroughness, opportunity for full statements, punctuality of hearings, bailiffs' attitudes, and facilities were kept identical to those in the Ministry of Justice questionnaire. However, the response options were modified into five categories: positive, negative, and "average," to avoid any risk of leading questions and to ensure objectivity. Additionally, three new questions were added: "Whether the prosecutor was objective and impartial," "Whether the questioning was audio-recorded throughout the investigation process," and "Whether there was adequate opportunity to review the transcript before signing," along with an open-ended question: "Any special comments regarding the prosecutors' office.">
   This questionnaire was administered in September of this year. Student volunteers from our Foundation were divided into nine groups of three. Each group conducted interviews for three mornings, carrying out a three-week questionnaire survey at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office. Random interviews were conducted in the litigants' lounge with summoned persons who had just completed their questioning and exited the hearing room. Each questionnaire item was addressed via face-to-face interviews, marked with a "V," and any special comments were duly recorded.
   
3. Number and Percentage of Collected Questionnaires
   A total of 349 questionnaires were collected. Among them, defendants accounted for the largest group at 119 people, making up 34.10% of the total collection; witnesses came second at 33.20%; attorneys followed at 14.30%; denunciators at 8.90%; interested parties at 6.60%; and complainants at 2.00%.
   The analysis method for this questionnaire, in addition to explaining the phenomena revealed by the number of selections and percentages for each question, compares the results of this questionnaire with the questionnaire survey conducted by the Ministry of Justice outside prosecutors' offices between February and March of this year. The Ministry of Justice questionnaire targeted summoned persons outside prosecutors' offices nationwide, totaling 356 interviewees. However, for the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, there were only 28 interviewees, which is a very small number. In contrast, this questionnaire specifically targeted the Taipei District Prosecutors Office; therefore, to ensure fairness, the comparative analysis will simultaneously reference both the "National District Prosecutors Offices" and "Taipei District Prosecutors Office" portions of the Ministry of Justice questionnaire results.
   

II. Questionnaire Analysis

1. Just over half of the respondents considered the prosecutors' questioning attitude to be "very good" or "good"
   To promote judicial reform through empirical methods, the Judicial Reform Foundation conducted a series of empirical investigations, including courtroom observations, legislator questionnaires, and attorney questionnaires. Regarding prosecutors' offices, due to the principle of non-publicity of investigations, public attendance and observation are not permitted. Therefore, the Foundation conducted a random questionnaire survey specifically targeting citizens waiting outside or having completed their sessions at the prosecutors' offices of the Taipei District Prosecutors Office. In addition, the Ministry of Justice conducted a similar survey in February 1996; the results of this survey will be compared and analyzed alongside it to understand the general public's perceptions of the prosecutors' offices of the district prosecutors' offices.
   
   • [Question 1] How would you rate the prosecutor's questioning attitude?
     In Question 1, regarding the prosecutor's questioning attitude, 21.8% of respondents rated it as "very good" and 28.7% as "good," with those choosing these two positive options totaling 50.5%. Article 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly stipulates: "The questioning of a defendant shall be conducted with an earnest and sincere attitude." Article 31 of the "Directions for Prosecutors' Offices in Handling Criminal Cases," promulgated by the Ministry of Justice, also stipulates: "When questioning a defendant, an earnest and courteous attitude shall be adopted." However, among the respondents of this questionnaire, only slightly over half considered the questioning attitude of prosecutors at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office to be "very good" or "good"; meanwhile, 9.7% considered the prosecutors' questioning attitude to be "bad" and 6.0% "very bad." These two negative options totaled 15.7% of all respondents, indicating that more than 15% of the public still perceived prosecutors' questioning attitudes as "bad" or "very bad." This result warrants urging prosecution units to make further improvements.
     In terms of questioning attitude, the positive selections in the Ministry of Justice survey were nearly double those of this questionnaire, while negative selections were only one-fifth, showing a stark contrast
     In the questionnaire survey conducted by the Ministry of Justice across national district prosecutors' offices regarding the "questioning attitude" option, as many as 97.75% of respondents considered the prosecutor's attitude "kind" or "fairly good," while only 2.25% considered it "unkind" or "scolding," showing an extreme disparity between positive and negative options. In the Taipei District Prosecutors Office portion, those selecting "kind" or "fairly good" totaled as high as 96.4%, while those considering it "unkind" or "scolding" accounted for only 3.6%. Compared with the results of this questionnaire, those choosing positive options were nearly twice as many as in this questionnaire, whereas those choosing negative options were only one-fifth.
     Prosecutors are "very emotional," "impatient," "too arrogant," and "treat witnesses like criminals"
     Respondents often expressed doubts regarding prosecutors' questioning attitudes. Several special notes made by litigants regarding questioning attitudes are summarized below:
     "The prosecutor's attitude was too poor, involving insults, scolding, or contemptuous behavior."
     "The prosecutor was far too arrogant."
     "Constantly interrupting the litigant's statements, extremely impatient, and showing a lack of respect for litigants."
     "The prosecutor was very emotional and simply venting emotions."
     "The prosecutor treated witnesses as if they were criminals."
     
     
2. Questioning duration is disproportionate to waiting time: over 60% of respondents experienced a "questioning duration" of ten minutes or less, yet 54% had to wait five minutes or more, and as many as 29% even had to wait twenty minutes or more
   
   • [Question 2] Approximately how long was the prosecutor's questioning last time or this time?
     In Question 2, to understand the general length of court hearings, this questionnaire asked respondents waiting for a hearing about the prosecutor's questioning duration "last time," and asked respondents who had already completed their hearing about the questioning duration "this time." Hearings lasting five minutes or less accounted for 19.8% of total respondents; five to ten minutes, 20.1%; ten to twenty minutes, 20.1%; twenty to thirty minutes, 10.6%; thirty minutes to one hour, 3.2%; and over one hour, 0.9%. Overall, more than 60% of respondents experienced questioning durations of ten minutes or less.
     
   • [Question 6] Did the prosecutor start the hearing on time?
     In Question 6, hearings started on time by prosecutors accounted for only 23.5%; delayed by less than five minutes, 17.2%; and delayed by five to twenty minutes, 25.2%. Delays of over twenty minutes reach an intolerable level under social consensus, yet 12.9% of total respondents stated that the delay was twenty to thirty minutes, 12.3% stated thirty minutes to one hour, and 4.0% even stated they waited over one hour for the hearing to begin. Over 29% of respondents had to wait bitterly for twenty minutes or more, representing a severe sacrifice of procedural interests for litigants and a massive waste of overall societal costs.
     
   "Hearing times are very short, but the waiting time is extremely long," "Waiting time far exceeds the questioning time," "Litigants are running around in exhaustion"
   As can be seen from the comparative analysis of Questions 2 and 6 above, under the current circumstances of prosecutors' offices, it is quite common for hearings to be as short as ten minutes or less while requiring a prolonged wait.
   Regarding "questioning duration," several respondents made special comments such as: "The interrogation time was not long enough, making it impossible to fully express oneself," "The prosecutor issued summonses repeatedly, questioning for only a few minutes each time, wearing litigants out in exhaustion," and "The questioning time was too long, missing the key points entirely." Regarding Question 6 concerning whether hearings started "on time," many respondents stated: "Prosecutors cannot start on time, leaving people waiting bitterly," "Each hearing is very short, but requires a long wait, with waiting time far exceeding the interrogation time, which is unsatisfactory," and some also noted: "The attorneys were also late, which is quite inappropriate."
   In the Ministry of Justice questionnaire, as many as 85% of respondents considered the questioning duration "moderate," those stating hearings started on time were two to three times that of this questionnaire, and those delayed by half an hour or more accounted for one-tenth of this questionnaire
   In the Ministry of Justice questionnaire, 85% of respondents nationwide considered the prosecutor's questioning duration "moderate," and as many as 75% of respondents at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office shared this view. Compared with the result of this questionnaire—where more than half of the respondents experienced questioning durations of only ten minutes or less—this finding is cast in doubt.
   In the Ministry of Justice questionnaire, those stating hearings started on time accounted for 67.14% of respondents nationwide, and 46.4% at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office—two to three times the figure in this questionnaire; those delayed by half an hour or more accounted for only 1.7% of total respondents, more than ten times lower than the 16% delayed by half an hour or more in this questionnaire. This questionnaire result appears to have underestimated the severity of hearing delays.
   
3. Fewer than half of the respondents considered prosecutors' questioning to be earnest and thorough
   
   • [Question 3] Do you think the prosecutor's questioning was earnest and thorough?
     Regarding the quality of prosecutors' questioning, 14.0% of total respondents considered the prosecutor's questioning "very earnest and thorough," and 35.5% considered it "earnest and thorough," totaling only 49.5%. This clearly shows that less than half of the respondents had confidence in the quality of prosecutors' handling of cases. Meanwhile, 11.7% considered the questioning "not earnest and thorough" and 5.2% "very unearnest and thorough," bringing the combined total to 16.9%. This demonstrates that respondents still harbor doubts about the perfunctoriness of prosecutors' case handling quality.
     In terms of questioning methods, positive selections in the Ministry of Justice questionnaire were nearly double those of this questionnaire, while negative selections did not even reach one-third
     In the Ministry of Justice survey results, among respondents nationwide, 41.01% considered questioning "thorough" and 48.31% considered it "moderate," meaning as many as 89% affirmed the thoroughness of prosecutors' questioning content, while only 5.89% considered questioning "perfunctory." Among respondents at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, 35.7% considered questioning "thorough" and 46.4% considered it "moderate," meaning as many as 82% similarly affirmed the thoroughness of prosecutors' questioning content, with only 3.6% considering it perfunctory.
     Compared with this questionnaire, the positive selections in the Ministry of Justice questionnaire were nearly twice as many, while negative selections did not reach one-third of those in this questionnaire.
     "The prosecutor did not read the case files," "Missed the key points," "Slapdash," "Sloppy," "Completely out of touch with the situation"
     In this questionnaire, opinions regarding whether prosecutors were "earnest and thorough in questioning" included multiple respondents stating: "The prosecutor did not read the case files beforehand and missed the key points," "The process was sloppy and merely a formality," "The prosecutor dismissed the case with a single question, making it hard to accept," "The prosecutor was completely out of touch with the situation," and "The prosecutor was especially slapdash with minor cases." This reveals that many respondents still doubted prosecutors' questioning methods and believed the earnestness of prosecutors' questioning needs enhancement.
     
4. Only 46% of respondents held a positive attitude toward the prosecutor's questioning stance, while as many as 44% expressed reservation or doubt
   
   • [Question 4] Do you think the prosecutor's questioning stance was objective and impartial?
     Regarding whether the prosecutor's questioning stance was objective and impartial, 10.0% of total respondents considered it "very impartial" and 35.5% considered it "impartial," with the sum of both totaling 45.5%. Those choosing positive options had not yet reached a majority. This shows that public trust in the objectivity and impartiality of prosecutors' questioning stances remains low. Those choosing "impartial" reached 11.7%, and "very unfair/partial" reached 5.20%, totaling 16.9%. If those who were ambivalent and chose "average" are added, as many as 44% of respondents held a reserved attitude toward the prosecutor's questioning stance. For litigants still undergoing investigation procedures, the fact that prosecutors failed to even command trust in their questioning stance indicates a grave problem.
     "Prosecutors hold predetermined positions," "Have long-held biases," "Completely disbelieve any defense from defendants," highlighting that public trust in judicial personnel still requires strengthening
     Regarding special views held by litigants on prosecutors' questioning stances, several respondents stated: "Prosecutors failed to remain objective and held predetermined positions," "Prosecutors simply assumed defendants were guilty and disbelieved any defense offered by them," "Prosecutors rarely accepted witness opinions," and "Prosecutors held deep-seated biases, making court hearings nothing more than a formality." From this, it is evident that public trust in the fairness and objectivity of prosecutors handling cases still requires strengthening.
     
5. Only 46% of respondents felt they had adequate opportunities to make statements, with half of the respondents holding reserved attitudes
   
   • [Question 5] Did the prosecutor provide litigants, defense counsel, or agent ad litem with adequate opportunities to make statements?
     Whether prosecutors provide litigants, defense counsel, or agents ad litem with adequate opportunities to make statements during the questioning process is often a crucial key to upholding procedural justice and discovering objective truth. Among respondents in this questionnaire, only 11.5% considered the opportunity to make statements "very adequate," an extremely low proportion; those considering it "adequate" accounted for only 35%, bringing the total of those considering it adequate to just 46%, failing to reach a majority. Those considering the opportunity to make statements "inadequate" accounted for 17.2%, and "very inadequate" 6.6%, totaling approximately 24%; if those who considered it "average" are added, fully half of the respondents held reserved attitudes regarding the opportunity for adequate statements. Insufficient opportunities for statement will lead to the possibility of prosecutors misjudging the case facts, and are even more likely to cause litigants to harbor grievances due to unexpressed words, resulting in a lack of trust in the judiciary.
     Regarding the opportunity to express opinions fully, positive selections in the Ministry of Justice questionnaire were nearly double those of this questionnaire, while negative selections were less than one-twentieth
     According to the questionnaire survey conducted by the Ministry of Justice, among respondents nationwide, as many as 85% considered that "yes," adequate opportunities to make statements were given to litigants, while 10.96% considered "yes, but insufficient," totaling as high as 95%—which is obviously extremely high compared to our Foundation's aforementioned results. Only 1.97% considered that "no" adequate statement opportunity was provided. Additionally, at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, 85.7% of respondents considered that "yes," adequate statement opportunities were given, and 3.6% considered "yes, but insufficient," totaling 88.7%, with not a single respondent considering that "no" adequate opportunity for statements was provided. Positive selections were nearly twice those of our Foundation's questionnaire, while negative selections were less than one-twentieth.
     "Evidence investigation was far from adequate," "Litigants were not allowed to make full statements," leaving respondents with words they could not express
     Regarding views on whether there was an adequate opportunity to express opinions, multiple respondents noted situations such as: "Evidence investigation was far from adequate," "The prosecutor did not allow litigants to make full statements," and "Frequently interrupting litigants and showing impatience," making respondents feel they had grievances they could not voice.
     
6. Only 44% of respondents considered the bailiff's calling attitude "very good" or "good," while as many as 10% considered the bailiff's attitude "bad" or "very bad"
   
   • [Question 7] How would you rate the bailiffs' calling attitude?
     Among respondents in this questionnaire, 14.6% rated the bailiffs' calling attitude as "very good" and 30.9% as "good," failing to achieve a majority in positive evaluations. As many as 7.2% considered the calling attitude "bad" and 2.0% "very bad," totaling nearly 10%. Several respondents stated: "The quality of the bailiffs is too poor and their attitude is atrocious," while others stated: "Bailiffs only know how to bully litigants and completely fail to maintain order outside the hearing room."
     Positive evaluations of bailiffs' attitudes in the Ministry of Justice questionnaire reached as high as 98%, more than double that of this questionnaire
     In the Ministry of Justice survey nationwide, as many as 98.4% considered the bailiffs' calling attitude "good" or "fairly good," a positive evaluation exceeding twice that of this questionnaire survey, while only 0.28% considered it "atrocious." At the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, those considering the bailiffs' calling attitude "good" or "fairly good" reached as high as 99.8%, with negative evaluations dozens of times lower than in this questionnaire. Compared with this questionnaire, negative evaluations were obviously understated.
     
   Only 14% of respondents considered the facilities of the prosecutors' office lounge to be good
   
   • [Question 8] How are the facilities of the litigants' lounge in the prosecutors' office?
     Among respondents in this questionnaire, only 2.6% considered the facilities of the litigants' lounge in the prosecutors' office "very good" and 12.3% "good," totaling only 14%. As many as 20.3% considered the lounge facilities "bad" and 4.6% "very bad," bringing the total of respondents dissatisfied with the litigants' lounge facilities to nearly 25%. Among these, respondents pointed out areas for improvement regarding the lounge facilities, such as: "Not enough chairs," "Weak air conditioning leaving people sweating profusely," and "No drinking water."
     
7. As many as 86% of respondents in the Ministry of Justice questionnaire considered lounge facilities good, starkly contrasting with this questionnaire's results
   In the questionnaire survey conducted by the Ministry of Justice, among respondents nationwide, 61% considered the facilities of the litigants' lounge "good" and nearly 26% "fairly good," totaling 86% choosing positive options, while only 1.45% considered the lounge facilities "bad," a stark gap from the results of this questionnaire survey. Among respondents at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office in the Ministry of Justice questionnaire, 93.8% also chose positive options, and only 3.6% considered lounge facilities "bad."
   Still 8.9% of respondents stated that audio-recording was not conducted throughout the entire process, failing to fully perform the functions of recording equipment
   
   • [Question 9] During the investigation process, did the prosecutor audio-record the entire proceedings?
     The Ministry of Justice questionnaire did not conduct a survey targeting "whether audio-recording was conducted throughout the entire process," merely claiming: "All prosecutors' offices are equipped with recording devices in prosecutors' offices, positioned appropriately, operated by court clerks via buttons, and recording throughout the interrogation process. Except for poor recording effects in Banqiao and Taichung District Prosecutors Offices, the rest are fairly good. Situations of forgetting to press buttons, apart from being relatively frequent in Changhua District Prosecutors Office, rarely occur elsewhere." The Taipei District Prosecutors Office in particular was recorded as having "good recording effects," "display monitors during recording," and "rarely forgetting to press buttons," which can be described as favorable compared to other district prosecutors' offices nationwide.
     However, among respondents in this questionnaire, only 73.1% stated that prosecutors audio-recorded throughout the entire investigation process, while 8.9% still considered that audio-recording was "not" conducted throughout. Additionally, 18.1% of respondents did not answer, indicating they did not notice whether the prosecutor audio-recorded throughout. Given that court clerks' transcript quality is poor or even distorted is frequently heard, if recording equipment is well-equipped at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office yet audio-recording is not performed throughout, wouldn't such equipment become practically useless?
     
8. Only 27% of respondents had adequate opportunities to review the transcript before signing their names, and 43% lacked such an opportunity, clearly violating Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
   
   • [Question 10] Before signing your name on the transcript, did you have an adequate opportunity to review it?
     In this questionnaire, only 4.0% had a "very adequate" opportunity and 23.5% an "adequate" opportunity to review the transcript before signing, totaling merely 27%. Meanwhile, those with "inadequate" opportunities to review the transcript reached 28.9% and "very inadequate" 14.0%, bringing the combined total to 42.9%. This evidently runs the risk of violating Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates: "The transcript shall be read aloud or shown to the person interrogated, and they shall be asked whether there are any errors in the recording."
     "The transcript handwriting is sloppy and completely illegible," "Had no idea that transcripts could be reviewed," "Court clerks handed blank paper for litigants to sign," highlighting the severity of transcript distortion
     Regarding the problem of transcript distortion, which has long been criticized, multiple respondents stated: "The transcript handwriting is sloppy and completely illegible," "Never read the transcript at all," or even "Had no idea that transcripts could be read." Some litigants stated: "Did not sign the transcript at all," and there were even cases where "court clerks handed blank paper for litigants to sign." Depriving litigants of the opportunity to review transcripts, or turning signatures into mere formalities, is tantamount to forcing litigants to accept unanticipatable recording outcomes, severely violating the spirit of criminal procedure in discovering the truth and protecting human rights. Furthermore, the level of court clerks' transcript recording needs enhancement, which warrants severe self-reflection and review by the Ministry of Justice.
     
9. Special comments regarding the investigation process
   
   • [Question 11] Do you have any special comments regarding the investigation process?
     Question 11 is an open-ended question asking respondents for special comments regarding the investigation process. They are compiled and listed below:
     
     1. Doubts about the perfunctoriness of prosecutors handling cases: "Prosecutors completely fail to understand the ins and outs of the case and are out of touch with the situation."
        "Prosecutors lack professional competence and judgment."
        "Prosecutors are far too disrespectful of human rights."
        "Prosecutors do not judge based on evidence and should not carry out perfunctory and indiscriminate prosecutions."
        
        
     2. Distrust of prosecutors' integrity: "With money you live, without money you die; those without money shouldn't go to court."
        "Prosecutors are suspected of collusion or transfer of benefits."
        
        
     3. Regarding the conduct of the interrogation procedure: "Baseless and inexplicable accusations are accepted as formal cases, causing defendants deep grievance."
        "I am innocent, yet the prosecutor acts superior and high-and-mighty; it makes no sense and we should be on equal footing."
        "When complainants fail to show up, hearings are repeatedly scheduled, exhausting litigants."
        "Cases drag on for too long, with excessively long intervals between sessions."
        "Court clerks have too many opinions."
        "Court clerks act too high-and-mighty; afternoon hearings result in summonses arriving only at noon."
        
        
     4. Regarding overall evaluation: "Utterly outrageous, wasting taxpayers' money."
        "Investigation procedures make it hard for litigants to be convinced."
        "Prosecutors' case-handling performance varies—some are good, some are bad, depending on the individual."
        "There are too many cases, making it hard to demand investigation quality."
        "Prosecutors' performance is much better than before."
        
        

III. Conclusion

The results of the ten single-choice questions in this questionnaire, excluding Question 2 regarding questioning duration, can be organized according to the selection patterns of their positive and negative options as shown in the table below:

	Questionnaire Statistical Results		MOJ Questionnaire National District Prosecutors Offices		MOJ Questionnaire Taipei District Prosecutors Office Portion
Question \ Option Percentage	Positive Option	Negative Option	Positive Option	Negative Option	Positive Option	Negative Option
Questioning Attitude	50.5%	15.7%	97.75%	2.25%	96.4%	3.6%
Earnest and Thorough Questioning	49.5%	16.9%	89.32%	5.89%	82.1%	3.6%
Objective and Impartial Questioning Stance	53.0%	13.8%	Not Surveyed	Not Surveyed	Not Surveyed	Not Surveyed
Opportunity for Full Statements	46.5%	23.8%	95.51%	1.97%	89.3%	10.7%
Punctual Hearings	23.5%	71.6%	67.14%	32.86%	46.4%	53.6%
Bailiffs' Calling Attitude	45.5%	9.2%	99.43%	0.28%	100.0%	0.0%
Lounge Facilities	14.9%	24.9%	87.22%	1.45%	92.8%	3.6%
Full Audio-Recording	73.1%	8.9%	Not Surveyed	Not Surveyed	Not Surveyed	Not Surveyed
Adequate Transcript Review	27.5%	42.9%	Not Surveyed	Not Surveyed	Not Surveyed	Not Surveyed

1. Except for hearing punctuality, positive options outnumbered negative options, which is commendable
   As can be seen from the table above, apart from hearing punctuality, positive options for all other questions outnumbered negative opinions. This shows that general respondents' overall evaluation of the investigation procedure is relatively positive, a point worth acknowledging. It is also hoped that the Ministry of Justice and prosecution units will not become complacent, but will continuously encourage themselves to make further progress.
   
2. Positive opinions mostly failed to reach a majority, and 10% to 20% of respondents in each question expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation process, which warrants continued improvement by prosecution units
   However, among the aforementioned nine questions, only three—questioning attitude, whether the questioning stance was objective and impartial, and whether full audio-recording was conducted—had positive opinions just slightly exceeding a majority. For items such as whether questioning was earnest and thorough, whether there were adequate opportunities to make statements, punctual hearings, bailiffs' calling attitudes, lounge facilities, and adequate transcript review, positive opinions all fell short of a majority. This demonstrates that public trust in prosecution agencies during the investigation process remains insufficient. Furthermore, at least 10% to 20% or more of respondents expressed negative opinions across various questions, which warrants continued efforts by prosecution agencies.
   
3. Fewer than half of the respondents held positive attitudes toward questioning conditions, showing that public trust in the judiciary remains low
   Whether prosecutors' questioning is earnest and thorough involves the quality of their case handling, yet fewer than half of the respondents considered prosecutors' questioning "earnest and thorough." Whether prosecutors' questioning stances are objective and impartial forms the foundation of public trust in the judiciary, yet only about 50% of respondents considered prosecutors' questioning "objective and impartial," indicating that public trust in the judiciary remains low.
   
4. Negative opinions were most severe regarding delayed hearings, lack of adequate opportunities to review transcripts, poor lounge facilities, and insufficient statement opportunities
   Among negative opinions, as many as 71.6% considered hearings not punctual, 42.9% lacked adequate opportunities to review case transcripts before signing, and 24.9% considered the litigants' lounge facilities poor. These three problems drew the most negative feedback from litigants.
   
5. Positive opinions in the Ministry of Justice questionnaire results were mostly twice those of this questionnaire, while negative opinions were mostly less than one-tenth
   In the comparison above, it can be found that when comparing the Ministry of Justice questionnaire results with those of this questionnaire, positive opinions in the Ministry of Justice survey were mostly twice as high, while negative opinions were often less than one-tenth, inevitably raising doubts about the impartiality of the Ministry of Justice questionnaire.