Statement on the Supreme Court Judgment in the March 23 Executive Yuan Occupation Case

Today, the Criminal Division of Taiwan's Supreme Court delivered its third-instance verdict on the March 23 Executive Yuan Occupation case. The Supreme Court decided to revoke the original judgment and remand the case to the High Court for retrial.

The defense team affirms the Supreme Court's willingness to squarely face the complexity of the legal issues involved in this case, to grant the defendants' request for oral argument in court, and to allow four experts the opportunity to appear before the Supreme Court to provide professional legal opinions regarding the crime of incitement, civil disobedience, and the right of resistance, respectively.

However, the pro bono defense team expresses regret that the Supreme Court did not accept the defense's submission to suspend the trial and petition the Judicial Yuan Grand Justices for a constitutional interpretation regarding Article 153 of the Criminal Code concerning the crime of inciting others to commit offenses. This case could have served as a prime opportunity, more than thirty years after Taiwan's democratization, to look back and review the authoritarian remnants lingering in our Criminal Code. Whether considering Article 153 of the Criminal Code—"the crime of inciting others to commit offenses"—in light of the defense team's citations of numerous Judicial Yuan interpretations pointing out how this provision violates the principle of clarity, the principle of proportionality, and the principle of equality, or through the experts' comparative law research discovering that this offense fundamentally protects the absoluteness of state power functions, it is clear that the unconstitutionality of this offense is manifest. Even the prosecutor from the Supreme Prosecutor's Office present at the hearing urged the collegiate bench during oral argument to suspend the trial and petition for a constitutional interpretation. Yet, the Supreme Court merely opted for a constitutional interpretation rather than petitioning for one. While the defendants in this case still have the opportunity to assert their rights in the High Court, this offense has missed a fundamental opportunity to review the justification of its existence, which is deeply regrettable.

Nearly seven years have passed since the March 23 Executive Yuan Occupation event. Through the litigation of these past years, the defendants and the defense team have sought to carve out more space for Taiwan's democracy and rule of law. As this case is still ongoing, we hope that the High Court will squarely face the significance of this case in constitutional and legal history, and interpret and apply the provisions concerning the crime of inciteful acts, civil disobedience, and the right of resistance in a manner consistent with constitutional intent.

The defense team will continue to accompany the defendants through this long and arduous road. We sincerely hope that Taiwan can continue to move toward a sounder and deeper democratic state governed by the rule of law.

Verdict List

Charged Offense	Name	First-Instance Verdict	Second-Instance Verdict	Third-Instance Verdict
Damaging Property Entrusted to a Public Official	Li Kuan-Ling	Imprisonment for 4 months, commutative to a fine	Appeal dismissed	All revoked and remanded
	Hsu Shun-Chih	Imprisonment for 4 months, commutative to a fine	Imprisonment for 2 months for the incitement portion, commutative to a fine (to be executed concurrently with the offense of damaging property entrusted to a public official for a total of 5 months)
Inciting Others to Commit Offenses	Wei Yang	Not guilty	Imprisonment for 4 months, commutative to a fine
	Chen Ting-Hao	Not guilty	Imprisonment for 4 months, commutative to a fine
	Chiang Ping-lun	Not guilty	Imprisonment for 3 months, commutative to a fine
	Liu Ching-Wen	Not guilty	Imprisonment for 2 months, commutative to a fine
	Lin Chien-Hsing	Not guilty	Imprisonment for 3 months, commutative to a fine
	Ko Ting-Yu	Not guilty	Imprisonment for 2 months, commutative to a fine

Attachments

Summary of Reasons for the Judgment in the Case of Wei Yang and Others for Offenses Against Public Functionaries by the Supreme Court (109 Tai-Shang No. 3695)

Press Contact

Attorney Li Ming-ju, Staff Attorney, Judicial Reform Foundation

Today, the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the third-instance proceedings arising from the March 23 Executive Yuan occupation. The Supreme Court vacated the lower-court judgment and remanded the case to the Taiwan High Court.

The defense team welcomes the Supreme Court's willingness to confront the complexity of the legal issues, grant the defendants' request for oral argument, and hear four academic experts address the incitement offense, civil disobedience, and the right of resistance.

At the same time, the pro bono defense team regrets that the Supreme Court declined to stay the proceedings and seek a constitutional interpretation of Criminal Code Article 153, which punishes inciting another to commit an offense. More than 30 years after Taiwan's democratization, this case offered an important opportunity to reexamine an authoritarian-era remnant in the Criminal Code. The defense relied on multiple Judicial Yuan interpretations to argue that Article 153 violates legal certainty, proportionality, and equality; comparative-law analysis presented by experts likewise suggested that the offense historically protected the absolute operation of state power. Even the prosecutor from the Supreme Prosecutors Office urged the panel at oral argument to stay the case and seek constitutional review. The Supreme Court instead adopted a constitutionally conforming interpretation without referring the question to the Grand Justices. Although the defendants may continue asserting their rights after remand, the opportunity for a fundamental review of the offense's constitutional legitimacy has been missed, which the defense team deeply regrets.

Nearly seven years have passed since the March 23 Executive Yuan occupation. Through years of litigation, the defendants and defense team have sought to create greater space for democracy and the rule of law in Taiwan. Because the case remains pending, we hope the Taiwan High Court will confront its significance in Taiwan's constitutional and legal history and interpret the incitement offense, civil disobedience, and the right of resistance consistently with constitutional principles.

The defense team will continue to stand with the defendants through the remainder of this long process. We hope Taiwan will continue moving toward a stronger and deeper constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.

Disposition by Defendant

Charge	Defendant	First Instance	Second Instance	Third Instance
Damaging Property Entrusted to a Public Official	Li Kuan-Ling	Four months' imprisonment, commutable to a fine	Appeal dismissed	All challenged portions vacated and remanded
	Hsu Shun-Chih	Four months' imprisonment, commutable to a fine	Two months' imprisonment for the incitement offense, commutable to a fine; combined with the property-damage offense for an aggregate sentence of five months
Inciting Another to Commit an Offense	Wei Yang	Not guilty	Four months' imprisonment, commutable to a fine
	Chen Ting-Hao	Not guilty	Four months' imprisonment, commutable to a fine
	Chiang Ping-Lun	Not guilty	Three months' imprisonment, commutable to a fine
	Liu Ching-Wen	Not guilty	Two months' imprisonment, commutable to a fine
	Lin Chien-Hsing	Not guilty	Three months' imprisonment, commutable to a fine
	Ko Ting-Yu	Not guilty	Two months' imprisonment, commutable to a fine

Attachment

Supreme Court Summary of Reasons in 2020 Tai-Shang No. 3695 (Wei Yang et al., Offenses Against Public Functionaries)

Press Contact

Lee Ming-Ju / Staff Attorney, Judicial Reform Foundation