YouTuber "Cheap" Zheng Caiwei released a video on his channel on January 9 this year, "What happened to Lotte Group? From spending 2 billion to having maggots in the lunch box." It discussed the operating conditions of the Lotte Monkeys professional baseball team and alluded to drones. Manufacturer Leihu Technology became an "arbitrage tool" for certain shareholders. Leihu issued a major announcement on the 12th of the same month and threatened to file a lawsuit. On the 19th, it formally filed a lawsuit seeking compensation of 100 million yuan. The case was heard by the Taipei District Court. Today, Leihu lost the lawsuit and Cheap was exempted from compensation. Can be appealed.
Lei Hu alleged that the video "What happened to Lotte Group? From spending 2 billion to having maggots in the lunch box" released by Cheap was subtitled "The truth about Lotte's peach ape being raised poor and why his rich dad became poor and miserable", and the content mentioned "Natural The performance of National Bank Venture Capital, run by the second generation of Sri Lanka’s Chen Guanru, is simply appalling, and it is almost like bankruptcy.” “Leihu Biotechnology has suffered losses for many years, and the capital increase price in June this year (2025) is only 15 yuan per share.” “Chen Guanru first used his personal name to "I invested in Leihu Technology (later corrected to Leihu Biotechnology)", "Then I asked Guoban Venture Capital to enter the market and buy 1,435 shares at a high price of 28.75 yuan. This investment has been pending for more than ten years", "Relying on the major shareholder Leihu Technology Military industry theme, the stock price once exceeded 80 yuan." "This performance is worse than when I bought 0050." "This kind of operation is to buy it yourself first, and then ask the company to buy it." "Are you using the company's money to help your own private investment?"
Leihu alleged that Cheap used sensational headlines and false information to maliciously insinuate that Leihu Technology had become a financial operation tool for specific shareholders, and denied Leihu's achievements in the field of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), seriously damaging Leihu's goodwill and shareholder rights. Cheap ignored the long-term characteristics of technology research and development, and simplified Leihu's efforts based on short-term stock price fluctuations. "Theme hype", the film uses exaggerated and false terms such as "years of losses" and "hanging for decades" to portray the company's management as improper or even illegal without reasonable verification, and derogatory to Chen Guanru's professional ability, decision-making integrity and personal integrity. It is also enough to cause the public and investors to question the business quality and market credibility of Leihu Technology, so it seeks compensation of 100 million yuan.
Cheap refutes that the video is about the lack of resources of Lotte Peach Monkey Ball Group. It follows the operating conditions of Lotte Group's business units in Taiwan, the need for capital increase of Lotte Online Banking, the operating system of National Bank Financial Holdings, and its system-related investment cases. It is a good-faith comment on matters that are worthy of public comment. It mentions The relevant financial information, investment price and quantity of Leihu Biotechnology invested by the National Bank can be verified by public information observatories, annual reports, and media reports. As for what he said in the video, "Guanru Chen first invested in Leihu Technology in his own name," Cheap admitted that it was a slip of the tongue and was later corrected to "Leihu Biotechnology."
Cheap emphasized that the video did not accuse Leihu Technology of any illegality, fraud, poor management or financial abnormalities. The remarks were positive or neutral and were not enough to damage reputation or goodwill. Before publishing, it had consulted various media, public information, annual reports and judicial decisions, and had fulfilled its reasonable verification obligations.
After the trial, the judge believed that what Cheap said in the video was based on considerable information, and there was no intention to knowingly be untrue. It had done all reasonable verification before publishing. Even if it used rhetoric such as "horrible, almost bankrupt," it was a comment on something that could be criticized by the public; there was no way to prove that Cheap had used Leihu Biotech. It is said that Leihu Technology "deliberately misspoke to achieve the effect of confusing the subject"; as for the "acquisition" theory, there is public information available, it is not completely unfounded, it does not go beyond reasonable comments, and it is not for the sole purpose of infringing reputation and goodwill. It should be protected by freedom of speech. Therefore, Leihu Technology's lawsuit is dismissed, and Cheap does not need to compensate. The entire case is subject to appeal.
