Relevant Legal Provisions

Article 310 of the Criminal Code：Whoever, with the intent to spread to the public, accuses or spreads statements sufficient to damage another person's reputation shall be guilty of defamation and subject to imprisonment of up to one year, detention, or a fine of up to NT$15,000.
Whoever disseminates text or images in committing the aforementioned offense shall be subject to imprisonment of up to two years, detention, or a fine of up to NT$30,000.
If the defamatory statement can be proven true, the offender shall not be punished. However, if it pertains to private morality and is unrelated to public interest, this exemption does not apply.

Facts and Reasons

The defendant (our client) sent their child to a certain sports training center. Upon returning home and taking a bath, the child was found to have unusual bruises on their body. The defendant photographed these injuries for documentation. Later, due to unresolved disputes with the coach (the complainant), the defendant uploaded related videos and photos to a gossip forum, seeking public judgment and cautioning others about children’s learning environments. After the complainant became aware, a lawsuit was filed against the defendant.

Prosecutor's Disposition

The defendant, charged with defamation, underwent investigation, which concluded with a non-prosecution decision.
According to the complainant's phone message records, it is evident that the defendant claimed to have found injuries on their child, with the child stating they were beaten by the complainant with an iron rod. The defendant's inquiries to the complainant about the matter were not unfounded and should be deemed credible. Although the complainant asserted in their response to the defendant that they had not harmed the child, the child’s body did have several long, red, and swollen bruises, supported by photographic evidence included in the case file. Thus, the defendant’s belief in the child’s account was not baseless, making it difficult to establish that the defendant had the subjective intent to fabricate false facts to defame the complainant's reputation.
Furthermore, competitive sports training is an educational activity, and the coach's teaching and disciplinary methods involving children are matters of public interest. The defendant’s article questioning the complainant’s disciplinary methods and uploading videos for public evaluation represent an expression of personal opinion on matters subject to public scrutiny. The defendant's actions were not baseless insults and did not exceed the necessary degree of limitation.

(Some details of the case have been adjusted or omitted to protect the parties' rights.)

Defense Attorneys:Kevin Yu