Statement | Hsueh Ching-piao Acquitted in Retrial
Last edited: 2026-08-22
Having previously been convicted under the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act and sentenced to 16 years of imprisonment, Hsueh Ching-piao lost his status as a reservist pursuant to law and was no longer subject to education call-ups. However, because he failed to report upon receiving a call-up notice, the court finalized a conviction against him for the offense of obstructing military service on the grounds of "failing to report in accordance with the law, thereby rendering the education call-up order unable to be served."
To this day (May 9), the prosecutor has yet to appeal the retrial judgment (Year 2024-Tzu-Tsai-No. 2) rendered by the Taiwan Chiayi District Court on March 31. The statutory appeal period has now expired, and Mr. Hsueh Ching-piao has finally been acquitted with finality. The pro bono defense team is deeply gratified by this outcome and hereby issues the following statement:
1. Relevant authorities should strengthen horizontal integration to prevent further miscarriages of justice
It was not difficult to clarify whether Hsueh Ching-piao maintained reservist status and thus whether he was in violation of an education call-up order. However, from the referral for investigation by the All-Out Defense Mobilization Agency of the Ministry of National Defense to the prosecutor's conclusion of investigation and indictment, and through the adjudication of the original judgment, there was a clear lack of horizontal integration. Military service records were not made promptly available for the judicial authorities to clarify the facts, resulting in a wrongful conviction.
Particularly as Taiwan faces an increasingly challenging national security environment, public opinion frequently scrutinizes the operational efficiency and procedures of military judicial organs. The existence of wrongful convictions serves as a warning of "where bolts may have come loose" and should be taken as a vital cautionary lesson.
2. This case was originally "merely" a minor administrative procedural flaw; yet when the citizen sought relief, various channels bounced responsibility back and forth, wasting effort in vain
Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Act of Military Service System provides: "Any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more shall be disqualified from military service." Article 28, Subparagraph 3 of the same Act provides: "Where a reservist is disqualified from military service in accordance with the law, their reservist status shall cease."
Furthermore, Article 35, Subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Act of Act of Military Service System stipulates: "Where a reservist is disqualified from military service pursuant to Article 5 of the Act of Military Service System, the judicial or military judicial authorities shall notify the individual and the specialized military service agency or unit of the municipality, county, or city government of their household registration jurisdiction, which shall forward the notice by official letter to the competent authority under the Ministry of National Defense for approval." Articles 37, 39, and 40 of the same Rules provide that persons subject to disqualification from military service shall, in addition to being notified by various agencies and schools, apply themselves or through their household heads to the township, township-administered city, or district office of their household registration.
During the proceedings after the retrial was initiated in this case, the Chiayi District Prosecutors Office once requested the Prosecutor-General to extraordinary appeal the case. The prosecution's good intention to open a pathway outside of retrial to vindicate the defendant was nonetheless rejected by the Supreme Court Criminal Judgment Year 2024-Tai-Fei-No. 89, on the grounds that "the existence of grounds for disqualification from military service does not automatically produce the executive effect of disqualification from military service" and that "sufficient facts and evidence showing whether the defendant's disqualification from military service took effect retroactively from the relevant dates of the education call-up in this case, or whether their reservist status had ceased, such that the defendant should be rendered a judgment of not guilty, may still be remedied through retrial proceedings."
The Supreme Court's legal opinion was unwilling to address the procedural disadvantages inflicted upon citizens by the aforementioned agencies' failure to communicate, resulting in either a lack of notification or a failure to receive notification. Instead, it mechanically and crudely simplified the issue into: "Disqualification from military service requires approval by the Ministry of National Defense" and "The existence of grounds for disqualification does not automatically produce the executive effect of disqualification from military service." This reveals instances of judicial and administrative authorities passing the buck to one another, causing a secondary infringement upon the rights and interests of citizens.
3. What kind of wrongful conviction relief mechanism do the people need? An appeal to implement the resolutions of the 2017 National Judicial Reform Conference by establishing an independently functioning "Wrongful Conviction Relief Commission" and "Post-Judgment Review Court for Criminal Cases"
As one of the extraordinary relief pathways, extraordinary appeal is already exceedingly difficult to obtain from the Prosecutor-General. In this case, even though the Prosecutor-General agreed that questions existed and filed an extraordinary appeal, it was still rejected by the Supreme Court, with the judgment reasoning stating that the case could be remedied through retrial proceedings. This inevitably casts further doubt on whether the dual-track extraordinary relief system under our current Code of Criminal Procedure truly aids in the vindication of wrongful cases.
The judicial system does not fear mistakes; it fears failing to correct them once made. The pro bono defense team affirms the Prosecutor-General's willingness to take seriously the potential illegality of the original final judgment in this case and to file an extraordinary appeal. We likewise express our approval of the Chiayi District Court retrial court's courage—as part of the judiciary's self-correction mechanism—to alter the judgment and acquit Hsueh Ching-piao, thereby restoring his innocence, as well as the Chiayi District Prosecutors Office prosecutor's determination to forgo an appeal and allow this case to reach finality swiftly. However, we cannot help but feel regret that a case lacking factual complexity still had to bounce back and forth between "retrial" and "extraordinary relief."}
The pro bono defense team once again calls upon the relevant authorities to implement the resolutions of the 2017 National Judicial Reform Conference concerning the "establishment of an independently functioning 'Wrongful Conviction Relief Commission' and 'Post-Judgment Review Court for Criminal Cases,'" and to actively build a systematic wrongful conviction rescue system so that no innocent person is ever left behind in the cracks of the system.
Further Reading
This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.