Previous 56 / 95 Next

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 間接的原動力，屬於犯罪之遠因，雖為科刑時應審酌事項之一，但除特定條文認為係犯罪構成要素外，通常並非以之為構成犯罪之要件，自無礙於犯罪之成立。而行為人之動機乃存在於行為人內心，倘其否認犯行或堅不吐實，被害對象已經死亡，又無其他事證足以推認行為人真實動機為何，自難為行為人以外之第三人所得探知。查被告辯稱：陳○○之女友丁○○曾告知其，張○○（即丁○○之前男友）對陳○○ 不懷好意，張○○恐有殺害陳○○之嫌疑，張○○證稱其覬覦丁○○之財產顯係惡意誣指；而其並未經營賭場，賴○○ 是前往陳○○經營之賭場還有大雅地區等地賭博，但也都說別人的賭場有詐賭，104年7月初，竟有3名不詳男子拿槍前來其住處問說賴○○是否在該處，其很害怕，根本不敢承認與賴○○熟識，而否認有殺害陳○○、賴○○之動機云云。本案被告既否認犯行自未吐露其之殺人動機，被害人亦已死亡，復無其他證據足以推斷被告��人之真正動機為何，惟依上開說明，縱使被告殺害被害人之動機不明，仍無解於其殺人之故意及可責性。且查： ⒈就被害人陳○○部分： ①證人丁○○於偵查中證稱：其確實有一筆儲蓄保險66萬元已經到期，且張○○之前曾以其名下的現金先後借給別人900 萬及700萬元，後來債務人無法償還債務…其買的股票都賠錢，並沒有賺錢；其覺得張○○會跟其在一起是貪圖其財產等語（見他卷三第55頁），可見證人丁○○主觀上認其自身並非無資力之人，與其交往之男子多係為貪圖其錢財而來。 ②證人霍○○於偵查中證稱：丁○○有一筆儲蓄保險66萬元已經到期，且張○○之前曾經以丁○○名下的現金先後借給別人900萬及700萬元，後來債務人無法償還債務，張○○還有幫丁○○法拍債務人的房子，丁○○名下所持有的股票每年可以扣抵稅額的股息就有6萬多元,每年所分配的股息就超過 100萬元；所以丁○○頗有資產等語（見他卷三第49頁至第5 0頁反面）。第五十六頁

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Yang Hongru (楊鴻儒)

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

Taiwan

Nationalities

Taiwanese

Case Title: Yang Hong-ru (Taiwan Supreme Court Criminal Judgment No. 1276 [114])

Age at Offence: 68

Age Group at Offence: Senior (60 and Above)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Unknown

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Person with Disabilities: Mental

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 23.6978

Longitude: 120.9605

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): Taiwan

Contributing TRP Partner

Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (Taiwan)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Commuted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2016

Method of Execution: Not executed

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: Blood pattern analysis
Forensic/Medical evidence: Chemistry/Toxicology/Drug analysis
Forensic/Medical evidence: Fingerprint/palmprint/footprint
Mitigation Specialist
Mental Health: Other
Mental Health: Psychiatrist
Mental Health: Psychologist

Case Background (300 words max): Yang Hong-ru was known to both victims, Chen and Lai. He may have harboured murderous intent towards the two men, possibly due to gambling debts or other motives.

Under the pretence of going on a trip or visiting friends, Yang drove away with the victim Chen on the morning of 27 June 2015, and with the victim Lai on the morning of 12 July that same year. On both occasions, during the journey, Yang laced the victims' food and drink with sleeping pills, rendering each of them unconscious. He then placed them head-first, feet-up, into sealed metal drums, where they suffocated to death within the confined spaces.

He transported the drums containing the victims' bodies to a location near the boundary between Nantou and Hualien on Provincial Highway No. 8—the first on the afternoon of 27 June 2015, and the second at midday on 12 July, where he disposed of them by pushing them into a ravine, thereby killing Chen and Lai in succession.

In the first, second, and third trials, as well as the first retrial, the defendant was sentenced to death. This was later commuted to life imprisonment in the second retrial, and that sentence was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.

In addition to the psychiatric assessment, a pre-sentencing social investigation was also conducted in this case. A multidisciplinary team was assembled for this purpose, comprising not only psychiatrists and psychologists, but also legal scholars and criminologists.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

This case falls under the provisions of the Fair and Speedy Criminal Trials Act, and accordingly, the sentence ought to be reduced to life imprisonment.
Pursuant to Taiwan's parole regulations, given that the defendant is of advanced age, life imprisonment would be sufficient, as the likelihood of the defendant reoffending upon release from prison is considered low.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

This case has been pending before the first-instance trial since December 2015. By the time the Supreme Court remanded it for retrial in September 2023, approximately seven years and nine months had elapsed. According to the terms of the remand order, certain matters remained to be subjected to forensic examination and witnesses to be questioned, requiring further investigation and clarification. Upon completion of the court's investigation and pronouncement of the judgment in the second retrial appeal, more than eight years would have passed. Accordingly, there exist grounds under Article 7 of the Fair and Speedy Criminal Trials warranting mitigation of punishment (where a death sentence is mitigated, the punishment shall be life imprisonment).
Consideration should be given to whether, even in the event that an elderly prisoner may become eligible for parole release following prolonged execution of sentence, the risk of reoffending diminishes due to advanced age.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Private
Remand: Private
Forth Appeal: Private
Trial: State Legal Aid
Appeal: State Legal Aid
Pre-trial: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Article 271(1) of the Criminal Code: A person who takes the life of another shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than ten years.

Case Brief Entry Status: Complete

Language of Case Materials

Mandarin (Traditional)

Is the case brief featured?: Yes

Primary Documents

【楊鴻儒】最高法院114年度台上字第1276號刑事判決.pdf
Other
Download View
【楊鴻儒】臺灣高等法院臺中分院112年度上重更二字第4號刑事判決.pdf
Other
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Yang Hongru (楊鴻儒)

Primary Documents

Notifications