A husband surnamed Xu accused his wife of stealing food with his colleagues. There was insufficient evidence to locate the base station, and the second instance rejected the request for additional compensation.

A husband surnamed Xu caught his wife and had an extramarital affair with a male colleague surnamed Li in the same company. In the first trial, Xiao Wang compensated him 200,000 yuan. The husband refused to accept the compensation, believing that the compensation was too low and proposed the location of mobile phone base stations, accusing the two of still having a private meeting to rent a house. The appeal requested an additional compensation of 600,000 yuan. However, the second-instance judge believed that the use of the same base station did not amount to an affair and dismissed Xu Nan's lawsuit.

The verdict pointed out that a man named Xu had been married to his wife for nearly 9 years and had two children. In early 2025, Xu looked through his wife’s mobile phone and was shocked to see that his wife and a male colleague surnamed Li who worked at the same travel agency were sending a large number of extremely explicit messages. They talked about sexual details such as "the sheets are wet" and "entering the body", and even compared their spouses' sleeping habits. Xu was so angry that he filed a lawsuit for 800,000 yuan. After hearing the case, the Qiaotou District Court found that Li's violation of spousal rights was serious and awarded 200,000 yuan in compensation.

Please read on...

However, Xu Nan believed that the amount of compensation was too low and appealed, and claimed that Li Nan's monthly salary was as high as 66,000 to 69,000 yuan, and he had many investments in his name and had considerable financial resources. After the stealing incident was exposed, Li Nan did not restrain himself. The two had private meetings four times at a hotel and his wife's residence in Tainan between February and May 2025.

Xu Nan asked the telecommunications company for the location of the two mobile phone base stations, which proved that the two were using the same base station at the time. The violation of spousal rights was obviously more serious, and Li Nan was asked to pay another 600,000 yuan. During the trial at the Kaohsiung High Court, Li Nan argued that the two only shared their marital status as colleagues, and the base station records submitted by Xu Nan could not prove that the two met.

The second-instance judge pointed out that there was nothing inappropriate in the original trial's finding that Li Nan had violated his spousal rights. As for Xu Nan's submission of cell phone records to prove that the two had a private meeting to rent a house, the second-instance judge believed that mobile phone base station signals cover a wide range. Even if the two mobile phones use the same mobile phone, there is no way to directly confirm that the two parties met, let alone intimate interaction. Therefore, Xu Nan's appeal claimed that the search for evidence and the additional compensation were unreasonable. The verdict was dismissed and the entire case was settled.