讀後心得

A man with the surname Li was sentenced to six months in prison for driving under the influence for the third time, and the prosecutors did not agree to his request for a fine. The Miaoli District Court initially revoked the prosecutors' decision, arguing that the man’s blood alcohol level just met the standard and he did not cause an accident. However, the prosecutors appealed, emphasizing the need to maintain a zero-tolerance policy against drunk driving. Ultimately, the Taichung High Court overturned the original ruling, and the man with the surname Li must serve his sentence. The prosecutors stated that Li's reoffending shows that the ban has failed to serve its deterrent purpose.

A man was sentenced to 6 months in prison for drunk driving for the third time, with the prosecution not allowing a fine to substitute and requiring him to serve time. (Photo: Peng Qingren) A man surnamed Li from Miaoli was charged with public endangerment for drunk driving three times, ultimately being sentenced to 6 months in prison. Although he requested to substitute the sentence with a fine, the prosecution disagreed and expressed objections to the court. The Miaoli District Court found that Li's breath alcohol level just met the low standard of 0.25 mg, and since no traffic accidents occurred, it revoked the prosecution's decision. However, the prosecution appealed, emphasizing that "the judiciary should not become a loophole that condones drunk driving." Ultimately, the Taichung High Court revoked the original decision and dismissed the objections, ordering that Li must serve his sentence. Li was caught drunk driving in 2014, 2018, and 2024, each time receiving a 6-month sentence. The prosecutor pointed out that Li had received deferred prosecution and fines for his first two drunk driving offenses, so it could not be concluded that fines had a deterrent effect, leading to the prohibition of a fine as a substitute this time. Li objected to this, but the judge believed his breath alcohol level of 0.25 mg precisely met the legal threshold for public endangerment, and since no accidents occurred, it fell within the previously defined exception of "difficult to correct or maintain legal order," thus allowing for his fine substitution. The prosecution expressed dissatisfaction and appealed, asserting that the Ministry of Justice has clearly stipulated the imprisonment standards for repeat drunk driving offenses, stating that "three offenses for drunk driving" should not be allowed a fine substitution unless there are special circumstances. The prosecutor emphasized that this was Li's third drunk driving offense and that not allowing a fine to replace the sentence fully aligns with the new standards and society's expectation of zero tolerance for drunk driving. The prosecutor noted that the court overstepped into the prosecution's discretion, arguing that if Li had already been warned in the first two offenses, why was there a third drunk driving? They believed that merely because the breath alcohol level met the standards and no accidents occurred, a fine should be granted to avoid "the judiciary becoming a source that condones drunk driving." After review, the Taichung High Court concluded that the prosecutor had clearly stated reasons and had not abused their power or violated procedures; thus, the court should respect the prosecution's discretion, revoke the original decision, and dismiss Li's objections, confirming that he must serve his time for his third drunk driving offense.

Warning: Drunk driving is prohibited; excessive drinking is harmful to health.