The Supreme Court rendered the 103-Tai-Shang-1932 Criminal Decision of June 12, 2014 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that when a trial court decides whether to admit a testimony into evidence by assessing the credibility of the statement, overall consideration should be given to all evidence in the case as well as potential self-contradictions or motives for misrepresentation to ensure the truthfulness of the testimony.

In the decision of the original trial court, general determination was made according to the investigation outcome of relevant evidentiary materials to find that Individual A committed an offense of continuously forging marketable securities and eight counts of offenses involving forgery of marketable securities. Dissatisfied with the decision of the original trial court concerning such offenses of forgery of marketable securities, Individual A appealed. One of Individual A's appeal assertions was that after Witness B testified that the check was dishonored, Individual A and the Plaintiff came together to discuss the issue of the bounced check. During the discussion, the Plaintiff mentioned that Individual A borrowed the check from him and he just recovered the check. Therefore, Individual A further asserted that such testimony proves that the Plaintiff did agree to and authorize the issue of the check in advance. However, the original trial court merely concluded that since the Plaintiff merely sought to avoid debt recovery, it should not be concluded that the Plaintiff had agreed to give the authorization beforehand.

In contrast, it was pointed out in the Decision that the credibility of a witness testimony pertains to the weight of evidence and should be determined ex officio by a trial court, even though such determination should be based on experiential and theoretic rules. Therefore, the assessment of the creditability of evidence by a trial court to determine the admissibility of evidence should be based on overall observation of all evidence in the case. In addition, whether the oral testimonies of witnesses contradict any practical principle and whether they are self-contradictory or reflect any motive for misrepresentation should be examined to ensure the truthfulness of witness testimonies.

It was held in the Decision that the original trial court had detailed Witness B's testimony in its original decision, that the Plaintiff was trying to avoid debt recovery, and that whether Individual A had received prior consent or authorization to use the checking account had no bearing in this case and did not violate experiential and theoretic rules. Based on the foregoing reasons, Individual A's appeal was rejected in the Decision.