Is "Shu-fen" at Fault? A Common Name Wrongly Takes the Fall for "Frivolous Litigation"!
Last edited: 2026-07-27
In 2015, Miss Shu-fen filed a criminal complaint regarding an offense against personal liberty with the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office. After investigating, the prosecutor stated in the non-prosecution disposition document: "...O Shu-fen indeed has a record of filing complaints against others multiple times (approximately 140 cases)," determining that Miss Shu-fen had engaged in frivolous litigation, and used this as one of the grounds for not prosecuting the defendant.
It is understood that the prosecutor allegedly entered only Miss Shu-fen's name into the internal "Criminal Information Intelligent Query System" without further verifying other personal data (such as ID number, date of birth, etc.), thereby attributing a total of approximately 140 complaints filed by all namesakes in the system entirely to Miss Shu-fen.
Miss Shu-fen petitioned everywhere, but the prosecutors office still refused to make corrections, which even caused the Tainan District Prosecutors Office to continuously cite this erroneous disposition document when investigating another case against Miss Shu-fen, and even mail a stranger's case files to Miss Shu-fen. Today (the 17th), the JRF, together with Miss Shu-fen, held a press conference in front of the Control Yuan, calling on the relevant prosecutors offices to proactively correct the erroneous non-prosecution disposition documents, while also petitioning members of the Control Yuan to investigate the personnel involved in this case and the flaws in the Ministry of Justice's internal query system.
Post-Press Conference Update and Response (12:00)
Following our press conference, the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office responded to the media stating: "Regarding the erroneous inclusion in Miss Shu-fen's complaint matters, after verification, it has been corrected and re-served; the non-prosecution result is not affected by the correction; the corrected document has also been uploaded to the Ministry of Justice's document query system (for internal query only), and subsequent queries of this case document by various district prosecutors offices have all been corrected." The part they referred to as having been corrected and re-served refers to the incident where, "simply due to having a 'common name,' she received the non-prosecution disposition document of a stranger with the same first and last name," which was already explained in today's press release by our foundation.
However, regarding the statement in the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition document cited at our press conference: "...O Shu-fen indeed has a record of filing complaints against others multiple times (approximately 140 cases)," the official response from the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office was: "If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the investigation result, they should follow appropriate legal avenues such as applying for re-disposition for relief; this is the proper course of action, which is hereby stated. Therefore, in this case, there is no basis to correct or supplement according to Article 11, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 4 of the Personal Data Protection Act upon the party's request, nor to re-serve, which is hereby stated." The New Taipei District Prosecutors Office refused to make corrections and has still not done so to this day, which our foundation hereby clarifies.
The New Taipei District Prosecutors Office Misattributed Miss Shu-fen's Complaint Record and Refused to Correct It
Miss Shu-fen and the JRF had previously petitioned the Ministry of Justice, the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office, and other units regarding the erroneous attribution of 140 complaints filed by her in the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office's non-prosecution disposition document. However, these official units responded: "Regarding the complainant query section in this system (the Ministry of Justice's Criminal Information Intelligent Query System), it is queried by inputting the complainant's name and lacks the functionality to query by ID number. Therefore, although the complainant summary data may list complainants with the same name together, this is the original default setting of the system and was not intentionally caused by the prosecutor.", and "In this case, entering the name into the Ministry of Justice's Criminal Information Intelligent Query System's complainant summary does not provide an ID number for the prosecutor to further confirm, other than the defendant's ID number." Consequently, they refused to correct the erroneous portions of the non-prosecution document.
After receiving the non-prosecution disposition document, the defendant was also misled, publicly calling Miss Shu-fen a "frivolous litigator," which damaged Miss Shu-fen's reputation and caused her immense distress.
The Bungled Non-Prosecution Disposition Document Continues to Be "Cited" by Other Prosecutors
Because of this non-prosecution document from the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office, the erroneous information continued to be cited in other cases. A prosecutor at the Tainan District Prosecutors Office similarly used the "140 complaint records" as one of the grounds to issue a non-prosecution disposition in another case, causing Miss Shu-fen to be continually labeled as a "frivolous litigator" by prosecutors.
Just Because of a "Common Name," Received a Non-Prosecution Disposition Document Belonging to a Stranger with the Same Name
After receiving two erroneous non-prosecution dispositions, Miss Shu-fen unexpectedly received another non-prosecution disposition document issued by the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office one day—bearing her exact name and surname, but completely unrelated to her. Simply because she has a "common name," Miss Shu-fen's personal data was forced to be exposed to a defendant in another completely unfamiliar case. Although the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office later corrected the non-prosecution document and re-served it, the confusion caused by judicial authorities conflating identities due to identical names has already harmed the rights and interests of the party concerned, causing endless distress!
The Ministry of Justice Should Improve System Flaws to Prevent Infringing on Public Rights and Interests
Regarding the JRF's recommendation to improve the data issues within the complainant query system, the Ministry of Justice replied in an official letter: "Regarding the recommendation to improve the 'Criminal Information Intelligent Query System' so that the complainant's ID number is not a mandatory input field, the actual entry rate is quite low. To prevent omissions in the information referenced by prosecutors, the Ministry has instructed subordinate units to properly use the data retrieved from the Criminal Information Intelligent Query System - Complainant Query Operation and conduct verification, so as to prevent similar situations from recurring and affecting the rights and interests of the parties." If the complainant query system is designed with the flaws described by the Ministry of Justice and fails to accurately identify a complainant's identity, individual prosecutors must not only carefully verify cases during their investigations, but the Ministry of Justice must also actively remediate the system's flaws. Otherwise, Miss Shu-fen's experience is likely not going to be an isolated case, inflicting irreparable damage on citizens' reputations and rights.
We call upon the New Taipei District Prosecutors Office to investigate and correct the erroneous parts of the non-prosecution disposition document to prevent them from continuing to be cited by other prosecutors. We also petition members of the Control Yuan to investigate the flaws in the Ministry of Justice's internal "Criminal Information Intelligent Query System" and urge the Ministry of Justice to improve the operation of its internal system to prevent data misplacement caused by identical names from once again infringing upon the rights and interests of the people.
Attendees
Lin Yung-sung, Attorney at Law / Chairman, Judicial Reform Foundation
Shih Hung-cheng, Attorney at Law / Convenor of the Evaluation Division, Judicial Reform Foundation
Huang Ying-chia, Attorney at Law / Legal Director, Judicial Reform Foundation
Chen Yu-ting, Attorney at Law / Staff Attorney, Judicial Reform Foundation
Press Contacts
Judicial Reform Foundation / Attorney Huang Ying-chia (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.