On March 7, 2015, the prosecutor of the Kinmen District Prosecutor's Office received the criminal judgment of the Kinmen District Court of Fujian Province. He believed that there were still inconsistencies in the original judgment's application of facts and sentencing, so he filed an appeal in accordance with the law to defend the dignity of the Coast Guard's law enforcement. The grounds for appeal are briefly stated as follows:
1. The defendant Wang ○○ in this case has sailed to the Mainland without permission many times since 2011, violating Article 28 and the first paragraph of Article 80, Paragraph 1 of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area. He was previously and later sentenced to deferred prosecution and requested summary judgment by the prosecutor of this agency. This time, he actually evaded and refused to accept security inspections, further aggravating the crime of obstructing public service in this case. The defendant's previous criminal record and the motive for this crime are beyond sympathy.
2. The defendant’s crime this time was starting the engine while the Coast Guard personnel were boarding the ship for security checks, and forcibly carrying the Coast Guard personnel away from the port. Due to the impact of the turbulent winds and waves in the open sea, the Coast Guard personnel could only interrupt the security check and hold on to the railings for safety. The means of his crime were extremely vicious. Moreover, it was late at night and visibility was poor. The defendant’s behavior caused the Coast Guard Administration’s Fleet Branch to dispatch several patrol boats to provide assistance. In addition to the large amount of manpower, fuel and ship maintenance costs incurred by the country due to the emergency service, if the Coast Guard personnel were not careful when stopping the ship and forcibly boarding the ship for inspection, and someone fell into the sea, it would cause more serious regrets. Moreover, the waters of Kinmen are the coastal defense frontline of Taiwan and are adjacent to the waters of the mainland. If the defendant's behavior of escaping by boat and evading inspection is not properly controlled in the direction of navigation, it is very likely that public officials enforcing the law in our waters will be carried to the waters of the mainland, leading to unnecessary cross-strait disputes and seriously endangering national security. It is sufficient to conclude that the harm caused by the defendant's crime this time is enormous.
3. Furthermore, after committing the crime, the defendant in this case did not express any apology to the victim, or try to make up for the damage caused by his crime. His attitude after committing the crime can hardly be said to be good. Furthermore, smugglers in the Kinmen area often evade port and coast guard security inspections of their cargo by modifying the ship's hold (secret compartment) without authorization. The defendant in this case was driving vessel No. ○○. After the security inspectors compared the ship's license and ship layout plan, they found that the front storage compartment of the ship could not be opened, and there was a suspicion that the ship had been modified into a secret compartment without authorization to hide cargo, so they stepped up the inspection. In order to evade and obstruct subsequent inspections, the defendant forced the security inspectors to go out to sea. If the defendant is only given a lighter sentence in this case, it will obviously fail to achieve the general and special prevention functions of the criminal law, causing operators including the defendant or other illegal operators who use secret compartments for smuggling to fail to be vigilant, and even follow suit to set up secret compartments or refuse or evade inspections. The safety and dignity of the law enforcement officers of the Kinmen Coast Guard will not be guaranteed.
4. In summary, the prosecutor of this office believes that the original trial failed to carefully consider the above circumstances and only imposed the defendant with the sentence previously given. This is unlikely to serve as a warning and may be too lenient. It is difficult to consider it appropriate, so we hereby file an appeal in accordance with the law.