
新北市國中生割頸案民事求償辯論終結,高等法院民事庭訂於11月25日宣判。辯方律師質疑受害者家屬捐出500萬元獎助學金是故意轉移資產,受害者父親楊承勳之父悲憤回應,強調捐款用於幫助清寒學生,從未私用,並質疑若被害人家屬獲得社會捐款即可免除賠償責任的論調是否合理。
AI-generated summary
本案源於2023年耶誕節發生的新北市國中生割頸命案,林女因細故與同學起爭執,郭姓少年持刀刺死楊姓同學,林姓少女則被認定涉教唆犯案,兩人分別遭判處12年、11年徒刑定讞。
2023年新北市國中生割頸案,高等法院民事庭今開庭審理、辯論終結,訂於11月25日宣判;辯方律師林月雪要求清查死者楊承勳的家屬財產,甚至質疑楊家將500萬元愛心捐款捐作獎助學金是「故意轉移資產」,楊父悲憤表示,正因不想用承勳的不幸換取利益,愛心大平台的捐款從未留作私用,500萬元獎助學金也捐給清水高中,目的是幫助學習成績達一定標準的清寒學生,不要讓他們的人生之路走偏,變成下一個站在少年法庭上的被告。
本案源於2023年耶誕節發生的新北市國中生割頸命案,林女因細故與同學起爭執,郭姓少年持刀刺死楊姓同學,林姓少女則被認定涉教唆犯案,兩人分別遭判處12年、11年徒刑定讞。
民事求償部分,楊姓少年父母及姊姊請求撫養費、精神慰撫金等損害賠償,其中楊父求償723萬餘元、楊母求償662萬餘元、楊姊求償792萬餘元,合計求償2177萬餘元。一審新北地院認定郭、林共同侵權,且2人的法定代理人未盡監督義務,判4人連帶賠償楊父母共938萬餘元。
案經上訴,雙方審理期間因訴訟攻防發生激烈的言語交鋒,楊姓少年家屬請求撫養費,辯方則要求調查家屬財產狀況;高院今開庭審理,但並未開放旁聽,審判長庭末諭知將於11月25日上午11時宣判。
開庭結束後,郭的律師林月雪竟出言罵被害家屬律師李惠暄「法律人之恥」;據悉,楊父於法庭上表示,被告律師主張清查他們的財產,但這與被告應負的賠償責任毫無關聯,被告造成家屬重大損害,應負完全賠償責任,如果賠償責任還須視被害人家屬的財力而定,試問兩名被告若殺害首富的孩子,是不是連一毛錢都不必賠?這種道理,說給全國老百姓聽,誰聽得進去?
楊父說,他的女兒是重度智能障礙,沒有謀生及自理能力,他和太太都已50多歲,一旦夫妻倆離世,還有誰能照顧女兒?原本一家人已計畫好,承勳也答應,父母離世後會一肩扛起照顧姊姊的責任,如今是誰剝奪了承勳照顧姊姊的責任?造成這樣損害的人,不用賠償嗎?還是說,法院認為等到那一天,就讓女兒跟著他們一起離世?
辯方另主張,楊承勳父母捐出500萬元獎助學金,是故意轉移資產。楊父表示,新北市政府開設的愛心大平台捐款匯集全國人民的愛心,他們非常感激,但從未想過用兒子的離世來發財,「如果2名被告這麼想,我把捐款全數交給他們父母,讓他們兒子、女兒來償命,他們要不要?」
楊父強調,正因不想用承勳的不幸換取利益,愛心大平台的捐款從未留作私用,500萬元獎助學金也捐給清水高中,目的是幫助學習成績達一定標準的清寒學生,不要讓他們的人生之路走偏,變成下一個站在少年法庭上的被告,取之於社會、用之於社會,有什麼不對?如果被告律師認為這是故意轉移資產,那真是以小人之心度君子之腹,他們非常不齒。
楊父質疑,愛心捐款難道可以扣抵損害賠償?若被告律師堅持如此主張,社會大眾聽得進去嗎?他將召開記者會詢問社會大眾:「如果殺一個人,被害人家屬得到社會同情的捐款後,被告就不用賠償,大家同不同意?如果大家都贊成,我就沒意見。」
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
高等法院將於11月25日上午11時宣判民事求償案
Very likely · Within days
The China-EU Copyright Protection Symposium in the Digital Environment was held in Yinchuan on the 13th. It focused on issues such as copyright governance in the digital environment, China-EU copyright legislation and law enforcement practices, and copyright protection in the era of generative artificial intelligence. It discussed new challenges and new paths for copyright protection under the changes in digital technology, and promoted China-EU understanding, mutual trust, and collaborative cooperation.

The Supreme People's Court issued a typical case on the protection of new plant varieties, involving a blueberry seedling infringement dispute. A certain planting base claimed to have stolen branches through connections and produced and sold the Spanish Praburu 1542 blueberry variety without permission. The court determined that it constituted "a business based on infringement" and applied punitive damages. It upheld the original judgment of compensating economic losses of 144,000 yuan and rights protection expenses of 10,000 yuan.

AI deep forgery technology reduces the cost and threshold for forging evidence, leading to biases in evidence review by judicial personnel, rising litigation costs, and declining judicial efficiency. Judicial organs are building a full-chain evidence review model through technical means, institutional norms and expert assistance to meet the challenges.

A divorced man in Taitung was accused by his underage daughter of multiple sexual assaults between 108 and 110 years. However, the daughter’s testimony was inconsistent and was influenced by her uncle’s inductive questioning. The court certification was tainted and could not be used as evidence. He was found not guilty in the first and second trials. It was emphasized that the acquittal was based on insufficient evidence and did not deny the trauma suffered by the victim.

An incident in which laundry beads stuck to moisture and exploded after being torn apart by hand, causing the washing liquid to spray into the eyes and causing corneal burns, has attracted attention. The reporter's investigation found that only one of the ten laundry beads was labeled with the warning "Do not tear by hand after the beads have adhered." Experts point out that alkaline detergents are more harmful to the eyes, so they should immediately rinse with water for 30 minutes and seek medical attention. If consumers are injured due to insufficient warning, they can claim compensation from the manufacturer in accordance with the law, but they need to make prejudgmental judgments based on design and use.

On the 13th, the New Taipei Prosecutor's Office charged the New Taipei Prosecutor's Office for violating the Personal Information Law, publicly insulting and defaming the man named Xin, who posted his past criminal conviction record, life photos and residence information on a social platform, and insinuated that he was a "pedophile grass". Sijimao responded humorously to this and said that he was prosecuted earlier than Ko Wenzhe.