
Chen Chongyu, a man who killed a 73-year-old man while driving under the influence of drugs last year, was sentenced to seven years and eight months in prison by the Keelung District Court. The deceased's daughter cried and complained that the sentence was too light, and questioned that the aggravated drug driving law, which was just passed by the Legislative Yuan on the third reading, still requires repeat offenders to be sentenced to death, and it is impossible to redress the injustice of the first victim.
AI-generated summary
In December last year, the man Chen Chongyu took drugs and drove a Mercedes without a license, killing a 73-year-old man who was dumping garbage and injuring three others.
In December last year, the man Chen Chongyu drove a Mercedes without a license after taking drugs. He lost control and rushed into the car, killing a 73-year-old man surnamed Chen who was dumping garbage, and injuring three other men.
Last year, a man named Chen Chongyu was hit and killed by a drug-driving driver, surnamed Chen, who was out taking out the trash. The Keelung District People's Court announced the verdict at 11:30 this morning and sentenced Chen to seven years and eight months in prison for drug-driving causing death. Facing the verdict, Chen Weng's fourth daughter Chen Jiejie sobbed: "I was sentenced to 7 years and 8 months for killing a life." "My dad lost his life. He only lost a few years of freedom. The punishment is not enough!" Coincidentally, the Legislative Yuan passed the amendment to some provisions of the Criminal Law of the Republic of China on the third reading this afternoon, stating that drug-driving recidivism causing death is punishable by up to the death penalty, and may also be subject to a fine of less than NT$10 million.
In response to the Legislative Yuan's decision to increase the punishment for habitual drug driving offenders, Chen Jiejie said that the Legislative Yuan approved on the third reading that repeat drug driving offenders can be sentenced to death if they cause death. This means that the first time drug driving kills a person, he will not be sentenced to death. He will have to wait until he commits drug driving again and kills another person before he can be sentenced to death. Therefore, a second victim must appear before the judge can sentence the habitual drug driving offender to death. Isn't the first victim who was killed by drug driving a human being? The first person to be killed, who will redress his grievance? How many more people have to die to gain the attention of the judiciary?
Chen Jiejie said that if the government does not use heavy penalties to curb the unhealthy trend of drug driving, and sentences drug drivers to death when drug driving kills people for the first time, more victims will die in vain, and more families of victims will be heartbroken. The next victim may be someone close to you, or someone you know, and deaths caused by drug driving will definitely continue to occur.
In addition, Chen Jiejie is also disappointed with the judicial system in Taiwan. She said that the current criminal law for drug driving causing death can carry a maximum sentence of 10 years, and it should be at least 9 years, close to 10 years. However, the national judge only sentenced Chen Guanyu to 7 years and eight months in prison; she will definitely appeal and seek justice for her late father.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The victim's family will appeal
Very likely · Within weeks

Hong Kong's Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok said proposed legislative amendments aim to bring a 'revolutionary overhaul' to building maintenance by cracking down on bid-rigging.

Wang Moumou, a staff member of an Internet company, knew clearly that the area around the military airport was a no-fly zone, but still illegally controlled a drone to approach military aircraft taking off and landing and take videos. The national security agency punished him in accordance with the law and ordered him to delete the video and eliminate the impact.

The Supreme People's Court released the third batch of typical cases involving people's jurors. A company filed an administrative lawsuit after being fined 700,000 yuan for falsely advertising the probability of winning a blind box prize. The court rejected the appeal at the second instance and upheld the original judgment. People's assessors rely on their professional experience to see through the false advertising behavior of businesses that use forensic identification to mislead consumers.

On October 30, the Supreme People's Court issued typical cases of service guarantee for winter heating, covering four types of high-risk dispute scenarios: breach of contract for exceeding the scope of heat use, illegal use of heat in private pipe networks, breach of guarantee of upstream fuel supply, and long-term heat supply arrears, to provide judicial protection for winter heating work.

The Judicial Yuan released a report on the implementation of national participation in trial cases for the 114th year, and the national judge system has been in operation for three years. Last year, 204 new cases were filed across the country, with the highest number of homicide cases; the National Judge Tribunal concluded 91 cases, the attendance rate of candidate National Judges was 47.6%, and the majority of appeals were upheld.

The Supreme People's Court issued a number of typical cases of service guarantee for winter heating, aiming to standardize the order of the heating market, properly resolve heating disputes, and ensure that the people have a safe and warm winter. The four cases released this time cover scenarios such as breach of contract for excessive heat consumption, private pipeline network, breach of guaranteed supply of upstream coal and long-term arrears.