Senior Miaoli police officer falsely reported that he went swimming overtime and received NT$13,000 in fraud. The second trial upheld probation.

Taichung High Court upheld Lin's original sentence of 1 year and 6 months and suspended for 5 years.

A patrol officer surnamed Lin in Miaoli County who had been a police officer for more than 30 years apparently did not perform his duties, but still "checked in" in the sign-in book and went swimming. Afterwards, he entered the falsely reported hours into the declaration system and took away 13,244 yuan. After the incident, he returned He argued, "How can I serve as a police officer without strengthening my body?" The prosecutor bluntly stated that a suspended sentence was not appropriate when prosecuting. However, in the first and second trials, he was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months, with a suspended sentence of 5 years, for the crime of using a public servant to publish false official documents.

After investigation, it was found that between September and December 2025, forest officer knew that he did not actually perform relevant duties, but filled in the contents such as "turn over" and "prevent and control dangerous driving" in the police entry and exit register, and then entered the false duty hours into the "duty and over-duty reporting system", and actually went to the SPA swimming pool to swim and take a rest. He continued to declare overtime despite taking breaks and other activities that had nothing to do with work. The police searched and found him on December 17 of that year. Lin admitted some of the crimes, but emphasized that he went swimming because he "felt tired after working all day." He also thought he was maintaining his physical fitness. After swimming, he continued to patrol the jurisdiction, which was only "speculation" and not fraud.

The prosecutor pointed out that as a police officer, Lin took advantage of his position to falsely report his duties to obtain over-duty pay, which not only violated his police duties, but also affected society's trust in police discipline. Moreover, he had been fined for embezzlement cases in the past and was listed as a counseling target for disciplinary violations. His attitude after the crime was not considered good, and it was not appropriate to give him a suspended sentence.

In the first instance, Lin finally confessed to the crime, repaid the proceeds of crime, and still had to support his son. He was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison, suspended for 5 years, and required to provide 120 hours of voluntary labor, pay 200,000 yuan to the public treasury, and undergo protective supervision. The prosecutor refused to accept the appeal. The second instance of the Taichung High Court held that Lin had paid back all the proceeds of crime, which amounted to only 13,244 yuan. If he was dismissed from office, the criminal liability might be too harsh and dismissed the appeal. The original verdict was upheld, and he could still appeal.