Security Officer Embezzles NT$470 in Lost Cash, Sentenced to 3 Years Probation

A security police officer in Taipei was charged with embezzling NT$470 in cash while handling lost property. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of 1 year and 4 months imprisonment with 3 years probation, making the ruling final. This case highlights judicial judgment against embezzlement by public officials in the course of duty.
その他NQ 0/100出典:PR Times

📋 Article Processing Timeline

  • 📰 Published: May 6, 2026 at 12:26
  • 🔍 Collected: May 6, 2026 at 12:31 (5 min after Published)
  • 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 6, 2026 at 12:34 (2 min after Collected)
Central News Agency

(Central News Agency Reporter Hsieh Chun-lin, Taipei, 6th) A security police officer surnamed Yi in Taipei was prosecuted for embezzling NT$470 in cash while handling a lost wallet. Both the first and second instances sentenced him to 1 year and 4 months imprisonment with 3 years probation for embezzlement of private property held in the course of duty. The Supreme Court recently rejected the appeal, making the judgment final.

The Taipei District Prosecutors Office indictment stated that Yi, serving in the Sixth Squadron of the Taipei City Police Department's Security Police Brigade, on July 16, 2023, at approximately 1:00 PM, while performing guard duty at the brigade's station and assisting citizens with a lost wallet belonging to a person surnamed Chang, allegedly embezzled NT$470 in cash from the wallet. He was then transferred to the legal system by the Security Police Brigade. After investigation, the prosecutor determined the evidence was clear and indicted Yi in May 2024.

After trial by the Taipei District Court in the first instance, Yi was sentenced to 1 year and 4 months imprisonment with 3 years probation for embezzlement of private property held in the course of duty, required to pay NT$50,000 to the public treasury, and deprived of civil rights for 1 year. Yi appealed the judgment to the second instance, which was heard by the Taiwan High Court. The High Court rejected the appeal in February last year, but the Supreme Court revoked the judgment and remanded it for retrial on the grounds that "a public defender or lawyer was not legally appointed to defend the appellant." Subsequently, the High Court's retrial also rejected the appeal.

After appealing to the third instance, the Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no errors in the facts and application of law in the original judgment, and the sentencing was appropriate. The appeal was rejected on April 29, and the entire case is now final. (Editor: Li Heng-shan) 1150506

Stand with facts, every sponsorship you make is a force to protect press freedom.

Download the Central News Agency's "First-hand News" APP to stay updated with the latest news.

Text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, or publicly transmitted and used without authorization.