Male Robber Who Murdered Retired Teacher Sentenced to Life Imprisonment; Hsing Tai-chao Files Extraordinary Appeal
Liu Chih-ming, a robber who murdered a retired teacher, had his life imprisonment sentence confirmed. However, Prosecutor General Hsing Tai-chao has filed an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court, citing legal violations in the judgment and the necessity to unify legal interpretations.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 4, 2026 at 18:48
- 🔍 Collected: May 4, 2026 at 19:01 (12 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 4, 2026 at 19:14 (12 min after Collected)
Central News Agency
(Central News Agency reporter Hsieh Chun-lin, Taipei, May 4th) The Supreme Prosecutors Office today announced that Liu Chih-ming, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for robbery and murder of a retired female teacher who had won a teaching award, had his sentence confirmed. After review, Prosecutor General Hsing Tai-chao determined that the judgment violated laws and there was a need to unify legal applications, and today filed an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office issued a press release stating that in the case of Liu Chih-ming's robbery and murder of a retired female teacher, after being prosecuted by the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors Office, the Kaohsiung District Court and the Kaohsiung Branch of the High Court ruled death penalty in the first, second, and successive retrials (rehearing 1, 2, and 3). The fourth retrial changed the sentence to life imprisonment, which was then upheld by the Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal.
The press release pointed out that the original judgment cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, deeming random, accidental, and unplanned robbery and murder not to be a "most serious crime"; however, the relevant provisions of the ICCPR and the Constitutional Court's 113 Constitutional Judgment No. 8 did not use whether the crime was premeditated as a standard for determining whether the defendant's act was a "most serious crime" or for sentencing to death. There was a violation of the law where the rule was not applied or improperly applied.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office stated that, secondly, Liu Chih-ming randomly selected an unspecified victim in a public place without a specific target. The danger to life, the attitude of disrespect for life, the harm to society, the impact, and the culpability of the crime, according to common societal understanding, are clearly more serious than premeditated crimes with selected targets and limited scope of harm. The original judgment's finding seriously deviates from the national legal sentiment and contains contradictions in reasoning and violations of logical and empirical rules.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office pointed out that the original judgment only used the single reason that Liu Chih-ming's crime was not premeditated to conclude that it was not a "most serious crime," which also contradicted the Supreme Court's previous judgments in the case. The Supreme Court's judgment held that whether the defendant's act was premeditated was only one of the reference factors for determining whether to impose the death penalty, not the sole factor. If the defendant's crime is already most serious, it is still permissible to comprehensively consider various sentencing factors, and after ensuring human dignity, cautiously decide whether to impose the death penalty.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office believes that the original judgment violated evidentiary rules by failing to determine Liu Chih-ming's motive for intending to kill the victim based on evidence, and failed to include Liu's act of forced sexual intercourse in the sentencing evaluation, directly concluding that this case was not a "most serious crime." Its reasoning is contradictory.
In addition, the Supreme Prosecutors Office also mentioned that since the original judgment had already determined that Liu Chih-ming had successfully taken the victim's car keys and left the scene, it should have been judged as completed robbery. However, it was deemed attempted robbery on the grounds that Liu did not move the victim's vehicle under his actual control, which constitutes a violation of law due to improper application of rules.
Regarding the reasons for filing the extraordinary appeal, the press release stated that although the original judgment was not unfavorable to Liu Chih-ming, there were legal violations in its trial, and the legal issues involved in sentencing major murder cases are of great significance and principled importance, requiring clarification and unification of legal interpretations, including: "Can premeditation be used as a standard for determining 'most serious crimes'? Can 'most serious crimes' be determined solely by whether the crime was premeditated?"
The Supreme Prosecutors Office stated that after review by Prosecutor General Hsing Tai-chao, it was decided to file an extraordinary appeal in accordance with the law to uphold the human dignity of the victims, social justice, and judicial fairness and impartiality.
In December 2014, Liu Chih-ming, unhappy about a breakup with his girlfriend, rode his motorcycle to find her to reconcile but failed. Near Zuoying District, Kaohsiung City, he found a retired female teacher preparing to drive away after buying groceries and suddenly conceived the idea of robbing her car. He used a hammer to violently strike the victim when she opened the car door, causing her to collapse in the front passenger seat. Seeing signs of her regaining consciousness, he struck her again with the hammer.
Because the victim's car had a hidden lock on the gearshift, Liu could not drive it away. He then ransacked the victim's purse for 2000 New Taiwan Dollars and sexually assaulted her before leaving. The victim eventually died from massive blood loss due to 14 severe injuries, including a comminuted skull fracture. (Edited by Chang Ming-kun) 1150504
(Central News Agency reporter Hsieh Chun-lin, Taipei, May 4th) The Supreme Prosecutors Office today announced that Liu Chih-ming, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for robbery and murder of a retired female teacher who had won a teaching award, had his sentence confirmed. After review, Prosecutor General Hsing Tai-chao determined that the judgment violated laws and there was a need to unify legal applications, and today filed an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office issued a press release stating that in the case of Liu Chih-ming's robbery and murder of a retired female teacher, after being prosecuted by the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors Office, the Kaohsiung District Court and the Kaohsiung Branch of the High Court ruled death penalty in the first, second, and successive retrials (rehearing 1, 2, and 3). The fourth retrial changed the sentence to life imprisonment, which was then upheld by the Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal.
The press release pointed out that the original judgment cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, deeming random, accidental, and unplanned robbery and murder not to be a "most serious crime"; however, the relevant provisions of the ICCPR and the Constitutional Court's 113 Constitutional Judgment No. 8 did not use whether the crime was premeditated as a standard for determining whether the defendant's act was a "most serious crime" or for sentencing to death. There was a violation of the law where the rule was not applied or improperly applied.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office stated that, secondly, Liu Chih-ming randomly selected an unspecified victim in a public place without a specific target. The danger to life, the attitude of disrespect for life, the harm to society, the impact, and the culpability of the crime, according to common societal understanding, are clearly more serious than premeditated crimes with selected targets and limited scope of harm. The original judgment's finding seriously deviates from the national legal sentiment and contains contradictions in reasoning and violations of logical and empirical rules.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office pointed out that the original judgment only used the single reason that Liu Chih-ming's crime was not premeditated to conclude that it was not a "most serious crime," which also contradicted the Supreme Court's previous judgments in the case. The Supreme Court's judgment held that whether the defendant's act was premeditated was only one of the reference factors for determining whether to impose the death penalty, not the sole factor. If the defendant's crime is already most serious, it is still permissible to comprehensively consider various sentencing factors, and after ensuring human dignity, cautiously decide whether to impose the death penalty.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office believes that the original judgment violated evidentiary rules by failing to determine Liu Chih-ming's motive for intending to kill the victim based on evidence, and failed to include Liu's act of forced sexual intercourse in the sentencing evaluation, directly concluding that this case was not a "most serious crime." Its reasoning is contradictory.
In addition, the Supreme Prosecutors Office also mentioned that since the original judgment had already determined that Liu Chih-ming had successfully taken the victim's car keys and left the scene, it should have been judged as completed robbery. However, it was deemed attempted robbery on the grounds that Liu did not move the victim's vehicle under his actual control, which constitutes a violation of law due to improper application of rules.
Regarding the reasons for filing the extraordinary appeal, the press release stated that although the original judgment was not unfavorable to Liu Chih-ming, there were legal violations in its trial, and the legal issues involved in sentencing major murder cases are of great significance and principled importance, requiring clarification and unification of legal interpretations, including: "Can premeditation be used as a standard for determining 'most serious crimes'? Can 'most serious crimes' be determined solely by whether the crime was premeditated?"
The Supreme Prosecutors Office stated that after review by Prosecutor General Hsing Tai-chao, it was decided to file an extraordinary appeal in accordance with the law to uphold the human dignity of the victims, social justice, and judicial fairness and impartiality.
In December 2014, Liu Chih-ming, unhappy about a breakup with his girlfriend, rode his motorcycle to find her to reconcile but failed. Near Zuoying District, Kaohsiung City, he found a retired female teacher preparing to drive away after buying groceries and suddenly conceived the idea of robbing her car. He used a hammer to violently strike the victim when she opened the car door, causing her to collapse in the front passenger seat. Seeing signs of her regaining consciousness, he struck her again with the hammer.
Because the victim's car had a hidden lock on the gearshift, Liu could not drive it away. He then ransacked the victim's purse for 2000 New Taiwan Dollars and sexually assaulted her before leaving. The victim eventually died from massive blood loss due to 14 severe injuries, including a comminuted skull fracture. (Edited by Chang Ming-kun) 1150504