The Supreme Court rendered the 103-Tai-Shang-3389 Criminal Decision of September 25, 2014 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding out that the legal interest protected by penalizing the offense of enrichment committed by a civil servant under Article 6, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Anti-Corruption Statute is a civil servant's loyalty in serving the nation and national interest. Such offense is an offense that violates the legal interest of the nation rather than individuals. If an offender is obviously aware that an act is engaged in violation of laws and regulations out of a single intent to commit the offense, even if the offender and several other private persons benefit as a result, this is still substantively one offense.
According to the facts underlying the Decision, the original trial court held in its decision that the Appellant was clearly aware that Individual A rode a motorcycle without a driver's license with Individual B as his passenger. Both individuals are Indonesian nationals who failed to wear a helmet. Individual C is the employer of the two individuals. Out of the intent to enrich Individual A, who was the rider of the motorcycle, by protecting him against a traffic fine and to prevent Individual C from being fined by Taichung City Government, the Appellant was clearly aware that he violated laws and regulations with respect to the matters he was in charge of and supervised when he instructed Individuals A and B to leave the checkpoint and failed to issue to Individual A a ticket for violation of road traffic requirements on behalf of the Taichung City Government Police Bureau in accordance with Article 21, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 and Article 31, Paragraph 6 of the Statute for Road Traffic Administration and Penalties. The Appellant's violations also include his failure to refer Individuals A and B to the dedicated handling team of the National Immigration Agency and to refer Individual C for sanctions for hiring, without application, foreign nationals whose work permits had expired in violation of the Employment Service Law. As a result, the Appellant directly enriched Individual A and indirectly enriched Individual C, protecting Individuals A and C against administrative penalties and providing them with illegal benefits in the form of reduced property losses.
Although it was held in the Decision that facts mentioned above were not sufficiently investigated, it was also pointed out that the legal interest protected by penalizing the offense of enrichment committed by a civil servant under Article 6, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Anti-Corruption Statute is a civil servant's loyalty in serving this nation and the interest of the nation. The offense was an offense that violated the legal interest of the nation rather than an individual. Out of a single criminal intent, the Defendant engaged an act which he obviously was aware to be unlawful. Even though the offender and several other private persons benefitted as a result, this is still substantively one offense, and Article 55 of the Criminal Code does not apply. In addition, the unlawful benefits shall be combined when they are calculated. Therefore, even though the Appellant certainly engaged in the same act to allow Individuals A and C to obtain illegal benefits out of a single criminal intent to enrich such individuals according to the facts determined in the original trial court decision, still the offense is substantively one offense. Since the original trial court decision imposed penalties based on a combination of multiple offenses in accordance with Article 55 of the Criminal Code, such decision was illegal and was reversed and remanded.