The defendant is one of the few female murderers in Taiwan to have received a death sentence.
The Defendant worked at a café in New Taipei City, and the victims (a couple) were regular customers there. The male victim and the defendant had known each other since 2009, and from 2010 onwards the male victim began providing the defendant with financial support from time to time. Their relationship was very close.
On the evening of 16 February 2013, as the defendant prepared to marry her boyfriend, she wished to sever her inappropriate relationship with the male victim. She therefore conceived a plan to murder the couple for financial gain. As the two victims dined at the café where she was employed, she administered drugs that rendered them unconscious. She then took them to the banks of the nearby Tamsui River, where she killed them with a knife, robbed them of their belongings, and abandoned their bodies at the scene.
After committing the crime, the defendant also attempted to steal the victims' property, succeeding on one occasion and failing on another.
In the first and second trials, as well as the first retrial, the defendant was sentenced to death. In the second retrial, the judge took into account the defendant's lack of a criminal record and her positive attitude following the offence. The judge concluded that she had a high likelihood of rehabilitation and commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. The case was finally concluded in 2017 when the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the life sentence.
A psychological expert was commissioned to conduct an assessment in this case. The expert concluded that the defendant wished to end the relationship with the male victim but was aware that the victim would be reluctant to sever the relationship easily. Furthermore, unable to resist the temptation of money, the defendant was deeply distressed by this dilemma. Consequently, the expert determined that the defendant was under stress that could not be alleviated at the time and did not seek help. She believed that harming others was the only way to resolve the problem, which led her to commit the offence. However, the assessment also concluded that the defendant had a low likelihood of reoffending and a high likelihood of responding to rehabilitation and resocialisation.
Having comprehensively assessed all the circumstances, the court concluded that the defendant's criminal nature had not yet reached the level necessitating the deprivation of life and permanent isolation from society. It held that a long-term prison sentence, supplemented by guidance and rehabilitation within the prison, together with the encouragement and expectations of family and friends, should prompt the defendant to engage in profound self-reflection, adjust and change her character and disposition, reform and reintegrate into society. Consequently, the court sentenced her to life imprisonment.