Relevant Legal Provisions

Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act, Article 18：Anyone who commits stalking or harassment shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year, detention, or a fine of not more than NT$100,000, or both.

Criminal Code, Article 224：Anyone who, against the will of another person, commits an indecent act by means of violence, threats, intimidation, hypnosis, or other methods, shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than six months but not more than five years.

Facts and Reasons

The defendant (our client) was accused of violating the Child and Youth Welfare and Rights Protection Act, the Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act, and committing forcible indecency against a minor. In the first instance, the defendant was convicted of forcible indecency and sentenced to one year of imprisonment.
However, with the assistance of counsel, a settlement was reached between the parties. The defense then filed an appeal regarding the sentencing.

Judgment

The original judgment regarding the sentence was entirely revoked.

The court emphasized that criminal sentencing must realize the principle of proportionality in punishment. Sentences must conform to the principles of proportionality, equality, and appropriateness, ensuring fairness and justice in the distribution of punishment.

In this case, the defendant confessed during trial, reached a settlement with the complainant, and demonstrated genuine remorse with good post-offense behavior. Considering the motive, purpose, means of the crime, the harm caused, and the defendant’s educational background (technical school graduate), the court determined that the trial court failed to properly consider these mitigating circumstances.

The sentence imposed in the original judgment was found to violate the principle of proportionality. Therefore, the defendant’s appeal requesting a lighter sentence was deemed well-founded and granted.
 

(Note: To protect the client's interests, certain case details and judgment images have been redacted and modified. For a full review of the case, please refer to  Judicial Yuan's judgment database)

Attorneys：Vincent Huang、Ian Yan