讀後心得

A man with the surname Li from Miaoli was sentenced to 6 months in prison for his third DUI offense. He requested not to be imprisoned, citing the need to take care of his grandmother, but the prosecution refused. Although Mr. Li claimed that his blood alcohol content was only 0.25 mg and that he had not caused any accidents, the Miaoli District Court still deemed him a repeat offender and therefore did not allow him to pay a fine instead of serving time. The prosecution emphasized a zero-tolerance policy for DUI offenses, stating that Mr. Li's repeat offense should not be overlooked. Finally, the Taichung High Court upheld the prosecution's decision, and Li must serve time in prison.

Illustration of a DUI checkpoint.

A man with the surname Li was sentenced to six months in prison for his third DUI offense. He applied for a fine reduction on the grounds of caring for his grandmother, but the prosecution disagreed with his request. Li later filed an objection, and the Miaoli District Court revoked the decision, citing the low blood alcohol content and the absence of an accident. However, the prosecution appealed, emphasizing that this was Li's third DUI and stating, "The judiciary should not condone DUI behavior." The Taichung High Court found the prosecution's claims valid, revoked the initial ruling, and rejected Li's objection, ultimately requiring him to serve his prison sentence.

Li stated that his previous three DUI offenses occurred in 2014, 2018, and 2024, with significant intervals between each incident. This DUI occurred on April 18, 2024, more than five years from the last offense, and calculated from July 1, 2019, it has been over four years and nine months. His breath alcohol test registered only 0.25 milligrams per liter, which is low and did not result in an accident, prompting him to request the revocation of the prosecution's decision not to allow a fine reduction.

During the initial trial, the Miaoli District Court pointed out that since Li was sentenced to six months for his third DUI, the prosecution believed that it would be difficult to achieve a corrective effect and thus should not allow a fine reduction. However, his previous two DUI offenses occurred in 2014 and 2018, with a gap of six years, indicating that the prior deferred prosecution and fine reduction had a certain warning effect on him. The court also noted that Li's current blood alcohol content precisely met the legal threshold and did not result in an accident, fitting the old standard of "difficult to achieve corrective effects or maintain legal order," and should be eligible for a fine reduction, but the prosecution's discretion in denying the fine reduction simply because this was a third DUI was flawed.

The court pointed out that the prosecution overlooked circumstances favorable to Li in their considerations, which did not align with the Ministry of Justice's unified standards for DUI repeat offenses, thus revoking the prosecution's directive decision. The prosecution appealed, arguing that under the Ministry of Justice's uniform standards, there should be no fine reduction for a third DUI offense unless there are special circumstances, and Li met that standard, hence should not be granted leniency. The prosecutor emphasized that the court should not overly intervene in the prosecution's discretion and highlighted that zero tolerance for DUI is a consensus among the public, asserting that Li should not be easily forgiven for re-offending, questioning how he could commit the offense again if the previous two had already served as a warning. After considering the prosecutor's opinion, the court ultimately decided not to allow Li a fine reduction, and he would have to serve his prison sentence.

※ Reminder: DUI is prohibited, and excessive drinking is harmful to health.