Ko Wen-je Appeals in Core Pacific City Case, Asks High Court for Acquittal

In the Core Pacific City and political donation cases, the Taipei District Court sentenced Ko Wen-je to a 17-year prison term. Ko Wen-je argues that the Core Pacific City case decision was based on the consensus of the Urban Planning Committee, and that he respected his staff's professional expertise and approved it to be handled according to law. He also stated that all political donation transactions had legal receipts. He requests the high court to overturn the verdict and declare him not guilty.

Former Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je, implicated in the Core Pacific City and political donation cases, was sentenced by the Taipei District Court in March to a 17-year prison term for bribery against official duties under the Anti-Corruption Act, as well as for embezzlement for public interest and breach of trust under the Criminal Code. Both the Taipei District Prosecutors Office and Ko Wen-je have filed appeals.

Ko Wen-je's appeal brief states that the 20% floor area ratio (FAR) bonus for Core Pacific City was legal and well-founded. It argues that Taipei City employs a dual-track system for FAR bonuses. Besides the general bonuses under the land use control regulations, the Urban Planning Committee is authorized by Article 25 of the Taipei City Self-Government Ordinance for Urban Planning Implementation to grant case-specific FAR bonuses in "detailed plans," a practice consistent with past precedents.

The appeal mentions that the principle of strict legal reservation does not apply to beneficial administrative acts. As long as there is authorization under the urban planning system (Urban Planning Act Articles 24, 27-1), it is not illegal. The brief suggests the lower court misunderstood the principle of legal reservation. Furthermore, the case involved "referencing" rather than "applying mutatis mutandis" urban renewal bonus items, and the total FAR after the bonus did not exceed the 20% cap, and was far lower than the 50% urban renewal FAR bonus that requires no consideration.

The appeal states that Ko Wen-je's directive to "send for deliberation" was based on recommendations from the Department of Urban Development's reports and submissions, conforming to the administrative practice of 39 similar cases in the past 10 years, and was aimed at providing a transparent mechanism for handling petitions.

Additionally, regarding Core Pacific City's previously guaranteed 120,284 square meters (equivalent to 678% FAR), the appeal argues that former Deputy Mayor Lin Chin-rong's decision to remove it and revert it to 560% was a questionable infringement on its development rights. The current case merely provided an administrative procedure for the company to fully present its opinions, with no illegalities suspected.

The appeal points out that Core Pacific City had to incur substantial costs to obtain the 20% FAR bonus, which was more beneficial to the Taipei City Government than requiring the company to wait 11 years to apply for an urban renewal bonus.

The appeal also details the financial disputes involving Muke Company and the Chung Wang Foundation. It claims the lower court's use of guilty pleas from co-defendants Peng Chen-sheng and Shao Hsiu-pei as evidence against Ko Wen-je was a violation of Grand Justice Interpretation No. 582 and the Supreme Court's 13th criminal division meeting resolution of 2013, constituting a serious error in evidence admissibility.

Ko Wen-je maintains that the Core Pacific City case was decided based on the professional consensus of the Urban Planning Committee, and he respected his staff's expertise and instructed them to act according to law. He asserts that political donations had legal documentation, and other dealings like "Muke小物" and "KP SHOW" were commercial transactions, with no evidence of bribery or embezzlement. He argues the lower court's verdict deviated from the rule of experience in its fact-finding and confused the boundary between administrative discretion and violation of the law in its legal application. He requests the high court to overturn the original verdict and acquit him.