Prosecutors Won't Appeal 2.5-Year Sentence for Entertainer NONO in Sexual Assault Case
Entertainer NONO (Chen Hsuan-yu), accused of sexually assaulting and committing indecent acts against six women, was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in his second-instance trial for one count of attempted compulsory sexual intercourse, upholding the initial verdict. He was acquitted of six other charges due to insufficient evidence. On May 21, the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office announced its decision not to appeal either the guilty or not-guilty verdicts, aiming to finalize the judgment for prompt execution. The case originated from Taiwan's 2023 "MeToo movement" after a victim's public accusation on social media. If NONO also forgoes an appeal, the entire verdict will be finalized.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 21, 2026 at 10:47
- 🔍 Collected: May 21, 2026 at 11:01 (13 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 21, 2026 at 11:10 (9 min after Collected)
Entertainer NONO (Chen Hsuan-yu), implicated in a case involving the sexual assault and indecency against six women, was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in his first-instance trial, a sentence that was upheld in a second-instance trial at the end of April. The Taiwan High Prosecutors Office stated today that after deliberation, it has decided not to appeal either the guilty or not-guilty portions of the verdict, to allow the judgment to be finalized and executed sooner.
The Taiwan High Prosecutors Office explained that regarding the part of the verdict where the second-instance court upheld the first-instance acquittal for some accusers, the prosecution found no grounds for an appeal to the third-instance court under Article 9 of the Criminal Speedy Trial Act. Therefore, no further appeal will be filed on this part.
Additionally, concerning the 2-year and 6-month sentence for attempted compulsory sexual intercourse, the second-instance court had rejected the prosecutor's appeal, finding no errors or impropriety in the initial sentence. After review, the prosecution concluded that the second-instance judgment contained no discernible violations of law, and thus will not appeal this part either, to facilitate the finalization and execution of the sentence.
Legal experts point out that following the second-instance verdict, although the prosecution will not appeal, the defendant still retains the right to appeal. If the defendant appeals, the case will be heard by the third-instance court; if he does not, the verdict is declared final.
The entire case originated from Taiwan's "MeToo movement" in 2023, when a woman accused NONO (Chen Hsuan-yu) of assault on Facebook, leading to multiple others coming forward with accusations. Many of the incidents occurred over a decade ago, with victims alleging that NONO used his physical size advantage to commit the offenses. At the time, NONO announced on Facebook that he would immediately halt his entertainment career and engage in sincere, deep reflection.
The indictment from the Shilin District Prosecutors Office stated that NONO used his fame and work opportunities as an entertainer to get to know multiple victims. Between 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2013, at locations including his residence, hotels, and his car, he would arrange to be alone with victims under pretexts such as work-related meetings, offering a ride home after a show, or sharing a late-night snack, subsequently committing sexual offenses.
The prosecution determined that NONO committed crimes against six women, charging him with three counts of compulsory sexual intercourse, two counts of attempted compulsory sexual intercourse, and two counts of compulsory indecent assault. The first-instance Shilin District Court found that in 2011, NONO obtained a victim's contact information during the recording of a TV show. After the recording ended that night, he repeatedly contacted her, offering to drive her home. The victim initially declined but eventually agreed due to NONO's persistent invitations and her trust in him as a well-known senior figure in the entertainment industry.
NONO ultimately drove the car to the Dadaocheng riverside parking lot and attempted to forcibly have sex with the victim. He stopped and was unsuccessful only because she continuously struggled, begged, and fell onto the floor of the right rear passenger seat. For this crime of attempted compulsory sexual intercourse, the evidence was deemed clear, and he was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months. For the other six alleged offenses, NONO was acquitted due to insufficient evidence presented by the prosecutor. The prosecution appealed the acquittals, while NONO appealed the conviction, and the case was heard by the Taiwan High Court in the second instance.
The second-instance court announced its rejection of the appeals at the end of April. The collegiate panel determined that for the guilty portion, the original court's finding was not in error and the evidence was sufficient. For the acquitted portions, the evidence was deemed insufficient and would require strengthening, and any appeal by the prosecution would be constrained by the Speedy Trial Act.
Separately, the Shilin District Prosecutors Office, in a continued investigation, determined that NONO used his height and size advantage to assault another massage parlor employee and a female netizen. He was indicted last August on two charges, including compulsory sexual intercourse and compulsory indecent assault, with prosecutors recommending a heavy sentence. However, the Shilin District Court acquitted him on May 13. The judgment mentioned, "Though the shadow of suspicion is heavy, it is not ironclad proof; though public opinion is clamorous, it cannot replace the law," and stated the court must uphold the principle of presumption of innocence. This verdict can be appealed.
The Taiwan High Prosecutors Office explained that regarding the part of the verdict where the second-instance court upheld the first-instance acquittal for some accusers, the prosecution found no grounds for an appeal to the third-instance court under Article 9 of the Criminal Speedy Trial Act. Therefore, no further appeal will be filed on this part.
Additionally, concerning the 2-year and 6-month sentence for attempted compulsory sexual intercourse, the second-instance court had rejected the prosecutor's appeal, finding no errors or impropriety in the initial sentence. After review, the prosecution concluded that the second-instance judgment contained no discernible violations of law, and thus will not appeal this part either, to facilitate the finalization and execution of the sentence.
Legal experts point out that following the second-instance verdict, although the prosecution will not appeal, the defendant still retains the right to appeal. If the defendant appeals, the case will be heard by the third-instance court; if he does not, the verdict is declared final.
The entire case originated from Taiwan's "MeToo movement" in 2023, when a woman accused NONO (Chen Hsuan-yu) of assault on Facebook, leading to multiple others coming forward with accusations. Many of the incidents occurred over a decade ago, with victims alleging that NONO used his physical size advantage to commit the offenses. At the time, NONO announced on Facebook that he would immediately halt his entertainment career and engage in sincere, deep reflection.
The indictment from the Shilin District Prosecutors Office stated that NONO used his fame and work opportunities as an entertainer to get to know multiple victims. Between 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2013, at locations including his residence, hotels, and his car, he would arrange to be alone with victims under pretexts such as work-related meetings, offering a ride home after a show, or sharing a late-night snack, subsequently committing sexual offenses.
The prosecution determined that NONO committed crimes against six women, charging him with three counts of compulsory sexual intercourse, two counts of attempted compulsory sexual intercourse, and two counts of compulsory indecent assault. The first-instance Shilin District Court found that in 2011, NONO obtained a victim's contact information during the recording of a TV show. After the recording ended that night, he repeatedly contacted her, offering to drive her home. The victim initially declined but eventually agreed due to NONO's persistent invitations and her trust in him as a well-known senior figure in the entertainment industry.
NONO ultimately drove the car to the Dadaocheng riverside parking lot and attempted to forcibly have sex with the victim. He stopped and was unsuccessful only because she continuously struggled, begged, and fell onto the floor of the right rear passenger seat. For this crime of attempted compulsory sexual intercourse, the evidence was deemed clear, and he was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months. For the other six alleged offenses, NONO was acquitted due to insufficient evidence presented by the prosecutor. The prosecution appealed the acquittals, while NONO appealed the conviction, and the case was heard by the Taiwan High Court in the second instance.
The second-instance court announced its rejection of the appeals at the end of April. The collegiate panel determined that for the guilty portion, the original court's finding was not in error and the evidence was sufficient. For the acquitted portions, the evidence was deemed insufficient and would require strengthening, and any appeal by the prosecution would be constrained by the Speedy Trial Act.
Separately, the Shilin District Prosecutors Office, in a continued investigation, determined that NONO used his height and size advantage to assault another massage parlor employee and a female netizen. He was indicted last August on two charges, including compulsory sexual intercourse and compulsory indecent assault, with prosecutors recommending a heavy sentence. However, the Shilin District Court acquitted him on May 13. The judgment mentioned, "Though the shadow of suspicion is heavy, it is not ironclad proof; though public opinion is clamorous, it cannot replace the law," and stated the court must uphold the principle of presumption of innocence. This verdict can be appealed.