Ko Case: Second Trial Defense Strategy Revealed, Focusing on Legal Application

Former Taiwan People's Party chairman Ko Wen-je is mounting a new defense strategy in his appeal against a 17-year prison sentence for the Jinghua City and political donation cases. Having replaced most of his legal team, Ko's defense is shifting from denying the facts to challenging the legal application of the charges. The new strategy aims to reduce his overall sentence by focusing on legal interpretations and citing Supreme Court rulings.

The first trial focused heavily on factual investigations, witness testimonies, and evidence. For the appeal, Ko's team, now led by lawyers Lin Shi-meng and Kuan Kao-yueh, is referencing a 2008 Supreme Court ruling (97年度台上字第6118號). They argue the lower court did not sufficiently establish the legal basis for classifying the Taiwan People's Party as a public welfare organization, thus questioning the applicability of embezzlement charges. This legal challenge could impact sentencing, as public embezzlement carries a penalty of 1 to 7 years, while criminal misappropriation of property, a potential alternative, ranges from 6 months to 5 years.

Prosecutors have also appealed, seeking a harsher sentence. They contend the first trial overlooked key bribery facts, including a NT$15 million payment that should be classified as a bribe, and instances where Ko allegedly pressured officials. Ko's defense counters that the NT$2.1 million in question was a political donation, not a bribe, arguing it represents a minuscule fraction of the disputed land development benefits and lacks the necessary quid pro quo. They maintain that the rezoning of Jinghua City was within administrative discretion.

The charge of breach of trust, involving NT$8.27 million of the Zhongwang Foundation's funds used for party staff salaries, is a final-appeal case. If Ko is found guilty of this charge, he would face imprisonment even if the bribery case remains unresolved. Legal analysts suggest the new defense strategy aims to dismantle the foundation of the embezzlement charges first, then challenge the elements of bribery and breach of trust, effectively shifting the legal battleground to interpretation and application of the law.