Chiu Sung-cheng Case

Late in the evening on November 5, 2013, two brothers met with Fang O-O at the T'ung-Ting-Yuan Restaurant to negotiate the settlement of a NT$30,000 debt. Unexpectedly, Lin O-O, who had a separate debt dispute with Ch'iu O-ming, arrived with more than ten people wielding wooden clubs and tightly surrounded the two unarmed brothers.

After Lin O-O slapped Ch'iu O-ming in the face, conflict broke out instantly. The Ch'iu brothers put up a fierce defense, forced the crowd back, and then went to the police station to report that they had been assaulted.

It was later discovered that amidst the chaos, Tu O-O sustained a cut on his left forearm, Lin O-O died from excessive blood loss, and Cheng O-O died on the scene. What began as a simple debt negotiation ultimately claimed two lives.

The Taiwan High Court Kaohsiung Branch Court, in its 2014 Shang-Chung-Su No. 5 judgment, found Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng guilty of homicide, sentencing him to life imprisonment and depriving him of civil rights for life; Ch'iu O-ming was found guilty of assault resulting in death and sentenced to 11 years and 10 months of imprisonment.

Court Findings

1. Regarding Tu O-O and Lin O-O

   The court of final factual instance (Taiwan High Court Kaohsiung Branch Court 2014 Shang-Chung-Su No. 5 judgment; hereinafter the same) stated that Ch'iu O-ming and Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng went to the negotiation "concealing and carrying fruit knives" merely due to a debt dispute and "jointly wielded knives to slash Lin O-O, Tu O-O, and others holding baseball bats who intended to join the chaotic conflict between the two parties," resulting in minor injuries to Tu O-O and the death of Lin O-O from excessive blood loss.

2. Regarding Cheng O-O

   The court held that Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng held a "pre-concealed fruit knife" and "fiercely stabbed the back of Cheng O-O—who was unarmed, no longer had any intent to attack, and was fleeing with his back turned to Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng—with the blade penetrating deep into the lung within the thoracic cavity," resulting in the death of Cheng O-O.

Doubts in This Case

Ch'iu O-ming admitted that he did pick up a small knife dropped on the ground in self-defense to swing at Tu O-O and Lin O-O; however, Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng consistently denied touching a knife during the chaos, let alone wielding a knife to stab Cheng O-O in the back. Due to dim lighting at the scene, a large number of people, and blurry surveillance footage, the court's factual findings give rise to five major doubts.

※ Click on the images in the table to enlarge

Doubt 1 The Court's Findings After Examination Appear to Differ from the Surveillance Footage

Time (Early morning of November 6)	Court's Findings	Discrepancies and Doubts Between the Surveillance Footage and the Court's Findings
00:12:00	Lin O-O, Tu O-O, Cheng O-O, and several unidentified adult males successively arrived at the T'ung-Ting-Yuan Restaurant, with one of them carrying a wooden baseball bat. Lin O-O walked up to Ch'iu O-ming's seat and demanded that Ch'iu O-ming repay the debt.	Multiple men were carrying slender sticks.
00:13:59	Lin O-O slapped Ch'iu O-ming in the face once, and Ch'iu O-ming and Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng stood up holding pre-concealed fruit knives.	It would be difficult for the clothing and trousers worn by the Ch'iu brothers on that day to conceal weapons without being detected.
00:14:04 ～ 00:14:06	Ch'iu O-ming stepped forward while holding a weapon to attack.	No large amount of blood was left at the scene, and according to the surveillance footage, a white light appeared when Ch'iu O-ming waved the object in his hand, which should be the mobile phone he was holding.
00:14:11 ～ 00:18:00	Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng appeared at the upper right of the frame, ran from the outdoor area of the restaurant to the sidewalk, and took the sidewalk to the roadside. Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng stood in front of approximately 7 to 8 men, stepped forward and raised his hand to attack a man in front of him once from top to bottom. The man in front of him turned and fled toward the upper right side of the frame, exiting the frame, while other men dodged backward. Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng moved toward the right side of the frame and also exited the frame.	The surveillance footage does not show Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng stepping forward, raising his hand, and attacking from top to bottom. From 00:14:12 to 00:14:13, a man is seen holding a sharp object close to Cheng O-O's back, and they separated 1 to 2 seconds later.
00:14:23 ～ 00:14:26	Cheng O-O appeared from the upper left of the frame, ran to the vicinity of the pond at the upper left of the frame, and fell. Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng appeared from the upper left of the frame while Cheng O-O was still lying on the ground.
00:14:26 ～ 00:14:29	Cheng O-O got up from the ground, and Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng chased Cheng O-O from behind. Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng appeared to be holding an object in his hand and waved the object in his hand.	At 00:14:28, a white light appeared from the object held by Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng, which should be the light from a mobile phone.
00:14:32	Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng chased Cheng O-O to his side, and Cheng O-O fell into the pond. Aside from Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng chasing Cheng O-O, there was no one else beside the pond. Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng fiercely stabbed the back of Cheng O-O—who was unarmed, no longer had any intent to attack, and was fleeing with his back turned to Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng.	Cheng O-O repeatedly held a large white planter to confront Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng and did not have his back turned to Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng; moreover, the closest distance between Cheng O-O and Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng during the chase was no less than 150 centimeters, and the two had no physical contact before Cheng O-O fell into the water. Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng was unable to reach and stab Cheng O-O.

Regarding the most crucial action of "stabbing Cheng O-O," the JRF returned to the scene to take measurements and commissioned a crime scene reconstruction expert to conduct an appraisal. It was verified that during the chase, "Cheng O-O held a large white planter to confront Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng and did not turn his back to Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng," "the closest distance between the two was no less than 150 centimeters," and "the two had no physical contact before Cheng O-O fell into the water." At the time the court determined that Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng stabbed Cheng O-O, Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng was fundamentally unable to reach and stab Cheng O-O.

Doubt 2 Clothing and Trousers Seem Unlikely to Conceal Fruit Knives

The court determined that the Ch'iu brothers pre-concealed fruit knives and used them to slash Tu O-O, Lin O-O, and Cheng O-O. However, it seems unlikely that fruit knives could be concealed in the clothing and trousers worn by the Ch'iu brothers on that day.

Court's Findings	Doubts
The Ch'iu brothers pre-concealed fruit knives with a blade length of 14 cm, handle length of 11 cm, totaling 25 cm in length. (The picture is for illustration purposes)	The upper garments worn by the Ch'iu brothers on that day had no pockets; the pockets on the left and right sides and back of the shorts had a depth of about 14 and 20 cm, making it difficult to pre-conceal a 25 cm long fruit knife. (Pictures are for illustration purposes)
Two red scabbards were seized respectively at the entrance of the restaurant and in the middle of the slow lane.	The court did not seize the fruit knife used in the crime, and neither scabbard tested positive for Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's DNA. The scabbards may have been left behind by someone else.
Ch'iu O-ming threw one fruit knife into the Hou-Chin River, and the whereabouts of the other remain unknown. Although the murder weapon was not seized, combining the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the examination of surveillance footage, and the puncture wound on Cheng O-O's back, it can be inferred that Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng was holding a knife.	Eyewitness testimonies are contradictory, and their credibility is questionable. Examination of the surveillance footage shows that a white light appeared from the object held in Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's hand, which should be a mobile phone. On what basis can it be determined that Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng was holding a knife based solely on the puncture wound on Cheng O-O's back?

Doubt 3 Unidentified Stains Seem Not to Be Bloodstains

The court determined that the unidentified stains on Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's upper garment were smeared when Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng stabbed Cheng O-O in the back, but these unidentified stains appear not to be bloodstains.

Court	Doubts
The front of Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's upper garment was illuminated with multi-light sources, revealing unidentified turbid matter. Upon collection and appraisal using cotton swabs dipped in normal saline, it was found to be a stain acquired when blood splattered onto the front of Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's upper garment—who was in close proximity—at the exact moment Cheng O-O was stabbed.	The stain tested negative in the Kastle Meyer blood test (testing for hemoglobin containing pseudo-peroxidase activity) and is not a bloodstain.
The stains on Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's upper garment are difficult to distinguish with the naked eye.	Even if the stains on Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's upper garment were blood spots, they still differ from the large-area spatter and smearing phenomenon resulting from a person in close proximity being splattered after a stabbing.

Doubt 4 The Autopsy of Cheng O-O Seems to Violate Rules of Death Appraisal

Based on the appraisal report from the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, the court determined that Cheng O-O died of hemorrhagic shock and respiratory failure caused by a single puncture wound in the left chest and back. However, the autopsy of Cheng O-O seems to violate the rules of death appraisal.

Doubt 5 Witness Statements Are Full of Contradictions

Based on witness statements, and despite the lack of direct evidence such as unclear surveillance footage and the failure to seize the murder weapon, the court nevertheless concluded that Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng stabbed Cheng O-O. However, the statements of the witnesses are full of contradictions.

Conclusion: A Homicide Case Without a Knife

Behind every miscarriage of justice, there is a family working tirelessly for exoneration.

More than five years have passed since the Supreme Court dismissed Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's appeal on November 25, 2015, in the 2015 T'ai-Shang No. 3581 judgment, finalizing the case. Over these years, Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's father has traveled back and forth day and night, sparing no effort to seek a breakthrough.

In 2017, the JRF decided to take on the case for rescue.

On November 27 of this year (2020), at the retrial investigation hearing of the Taiwan High Court Kaohsiung Branch Court, Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng stated: "I should admit to things I have done, but I truly cannot accept things I have not done. My father has run around everywhere for me, and his black hair has turned white. It was my fault for keeping bad company, but this should not be borne by my parents and children. My child is only 10 years old and is being pointed at in school, told that their father is a murderer. I hope Your Honors the Judges will believe that I truly did not commit murder and give me a chance (to reopen the trial)."

It is hoped that the court will see that the facts determined by the original final judgment in this case indeed have numerous questionable aspects and grant Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng an opportunity for a retrial.

＊On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court for the 4th time revoked the ruling of the Taiwan High Court Kaohsiung Branch Court dismissing Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's motion for retrial. In this ruling (2025 T'ai-K'ang No. 422), the Supreme Court pointed out even more explicitly that the Taiwan High Court Kaohsiung Branch Court failed to thoroughly investigate key evidence such as "the object held in Ch'iu Sung-ch'eng's hand" and "whether the cut on the deceased's left back near the buttock caused bloodstain contamination," nor did it explain why the appraisal opinions of the two experts presented by the pro bono defense counsel were deemed untrustworthy. The pro bono defense counsel team for this case continues to assist in rescue efforts.

Related Judgments

• Supreme Court 2025 T'ai-K'ang No. 422 Criminal Ruling