
宜蘭地方法院前法官張軒豪因三度酒駕肇事,首次被判免除法官職務,轉任司法事務官後再次酒駕撞傷路人,懲戒法院判決其休職1年,可上訴。
AI-generated summary
張軒豪為宜蘭地方法院前法官,曾因酒駕被判刑及免職,轉任台北地院司法事務官後再次酒駕肇事。
宜蘭地方法院前法官張軒豪,前年8月酒駕上路被攔獲,被判刑4月定讞,懲戒法院將他判處免除法官職務,成為史上第1位因酒駕而被免職的法官,張去年5月轉任台北地院司法事務官,但他今年2月1日又在宜蘭市酒後騎機車追撞撞傷路人,被判刑6個月,台北地院主動將他移付懲戒,懲戒法院考量他坦承犯行且已與被害人和解,判決休職1年。可上訴。
張軒豪已是第3度酒駕,8年前(2018年)即在宜蘭酒駕肇事後逃逸,被判刑4月、緩刑2年確定,當時並未揭露其法官身分,逃過懲戒。
請繼續往下閱讀...
不料,張軒豪仍未記取教訓,於2024年8月19日下午5時許在辦公室飲用濃度40%的伏特加洋酒後,酒駕上路,當晚8時45分駕車行經宜蘭市環市南路與縣政二街口,因占用車道搶先左轉,被警方攔查酒測,酒測值高達1.05毫克,法院考量他因肝臟移植而領有極重度身障手冊,依公共危險罪判刑4月確定。
宜蘭地院將他停職,移送懲戒,懲戒法院認定張違法情節嚴重,有損法官尊嚴和宜蘭地院形象,已不適任法官,判決免除其法官職務,並轉任司法事務官確定,成為我國司法史上因酒駕而被拔掉法官職務的第一人。張軒豪去年5月21日至台北地院報到,擔任司法事務官。
沒想到張軒豪又貪杯誤事,今年2月1日上午11時許,他在台北市延平北路三段一家米糕店飲酒後,搭乘公車至宜蘭轉運站,再騎機車欲返家,行經宜蘭市縣政二街時,從後方追撞一名走在同向路肩的路人,導致對方下背部及骨盆挫傷、左手肘挫傷,警方對張實施酒測,測得吐氣酒精濃度達每公升0.35毫克。
宜蘭地院今年5月採簡易判決處刑,依公共危險罪將張軒豪判處6月徒刑,得易科罰金18萬元,傷害罪因賠付3萬6000元和解,獲被害人撤告。台北地院得知後,主動將張軒豪移送司法院,司法院認為張酒駕肇事事實甚為明確,將他移送懲戒法院審理。
懲戒法院審理後認為,張軒豪先前即曾因酒駕而被判免除法官職務,卻在轉任司法事務官後,再次酒駕並肇事,致行人受傷,危害不輕,考量他犯後尚能坦認罪行,並與被害人和解,量處休職1年。仍可上訴。
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
張軒豪可能對休職1年的判決提起上訴
Possible · Within weeks

Gong Yiting, the son of former senior deputy general manager of Sanli TV Gong Meifu, was accused by a female artist of sexually assaulting him by administering a sedative. In June, prosecutors charged him with forced sexual intercourse but did not prosecute him for the drugging part. The female artist's request to participate in the lawsuit was approved, and the Taipei District Court will inspect the conversation records between her and Gong's mother Zhao Ruyu on the communication software.

The Zhuhai Special Economic Zone Construction Waste Management Regulations will be implemented on October 15, 2026. For the first time, a special chapter is set up for the management of decoration waste. It is clear that the generating units and individuals need to notify the manager in advance, classify the collection, entrust the removal and pay the fee. It is prohibited to mix domestic waste or dump and pile it without authorization. Violators will face penalties such as warnings, fines, and even detention.

Justices Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin, and Zhu Fumei of the Judicial Yuan have long refused to participate in the review, but issued "disagreement with the legal opinion" in the name of the justices and authorized legal sources to pay for inclusion, triggering a Facebook debate between lawyer Fan Guohua and copyright expert Zhang Zhongxin. Fan Guohua questioned whether he was abusing public resources by using his job title for publishing and charging without comment, citing the analogy of the 33 yuan electric cooker case; Zhang Zhongxin believed that the document was a personal creation and the use of job titles was a separate issue. The two sides debated the ownership of documents and the appropriateness of their positions, involving copyright, the distinction between public and private matters, and official ethics.

83-year-old Ms. Fang was forced to accept the arbitration clause after the fund company’s app was upgraded, otherwise she would not be able to use the app. The court found that this coercive method violated the principle of voluntary arbitration, and the arbitration agreement was not effective for investors. It upheld the first-instance ruling that rejected the fund company manager’s objection.

Justices Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin and Zhu Fumei refused to participate in the deliberations of the Constitutional Court for more than 300 days, but later expressed their personal opinions in the form of a "Legal Opinion of Disagreement", which was published in the magazine "Taiwan Lawyer" and authorized to be downloaded by Fayuan Legal Network for a fee. This triggered controversy over judicial ethics and copyright. Fayuan.com has removed the relevant article, and other legal circles have reported and requested investigation.

Justices Cai Zongzhen, Yang Huiqin and Zhu Fumei refused to participate in the deliberations of the Constitutional Court, but issued legal opinions with the title of justice and authorized paid downloads. They were reported to the Judicial Yuan by members of the legal profession. Scholars Zhang Jiayin and Su Yantu criticized his behavior as violating judge ethics and confusing private comments with formal judgment opinions, which may weaken the authority of the Constitutional Court and affect the fairness of the trial.