{"id":8454,"date":"2025-10-28T12:32:47","date_gmt":"2025-10-28T04:32:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/?p=8454"},"modified":"2026-09-22T13:08:13","modified_gmt":"2026-09-22T05:08:13","slug":"criminal-appeal-lawyers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/blog\/criminal-appeal-lawyers\/","title":{"rendered":"How to find grounds for appeal in a criminal third instance? Examine the second instance judgment for any violation of the law."},"content":{"rendered":"<style>.grounds{font-size:17px;line-height:1.9;color:#27313b}.grounds h2{margin-top:2em;padding-left:.7em;border-left:5px solid #1f5f8b;color:#17384f}.grounds h3{color:#24485f}.grounds a{color:#1f5f8b;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:3px;font-weight:600}.grounds .note{margin:1.5em 0;padding:1.3em 1.4em;border:1px solid #d9e5ee;border-radius:8px;background:#f7fbff}@media(max-width:700px){.grounds{font-size:16px}}<\/style><article class=\"grounds\"><p>When assessing a criminal appeal at the third instance, the real question is not whether the second instance was fair, but whether the second instance judgment or its trial procedure contained any legally defensible issues. The third instance is, in principle, a legal review, and the grounds for appeal must be specifically argued based on the content of the judgment and the case file records. Simply restating the defendant&#039;s version, disagreeing with the selection of evidence, or merely stating &quot;the court made a mistake&quot; is usually insufficient to constitute a legally valid ground for a third instance appeal.<\/p><p>To understand the overall direction of relief following the second-instance judgment, please refer to [link\/reference].<a href=\"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/blog\/appeal-supreme-court\/\">Criminal Trial and Supreme Court Appeals<\/a>This page specifically explains how to examine potential legal flaws in second-instance judgments.<\/p><h2>The third trial is not simply a re-examination of all the facts.<\/h2><p>In principle, the third instance of a criminal case does not re-examine all witnesses, evidence, and facts. Instead, it examines whether the original judgment violated the law based on the grounds for appeal. If a party only claims that a certain witness is unreliable, that the court should have accepted another piece of evidence, or that they are innocent, without further explaining what norms the second instance judgment violated in terms of legal application, procedure, or reasoning, it may not form a legally sound point of contention.<\/p><p>Facts and evidence may still form the basis of analysis, but they must be used to explain specific legal issues, such as whether the judgment used illegal evidence, whether it failed to address evidence that should have been investigated according to law and was materially relevant to the outcome, or whether there are legal flaws in the reasoning, rather than requiring the third instance to directly re-evaluate all the facts.<\/p><h2>What constitutes a &quot;judgment that violates the law&quot;?<\/h2><p>Under the third-instance system of the Criminal Procedure Law, a judgment violating the law is the core concept of a third-instance appeal. In general, this may include a judgment that does not apply the law or applies it improperly, as well as instances where the trial procedure or reasoning in the judgment is illegal, as listed or recognized by law. Whether this is established or not requires corroborating the grounds for appeal with the relevant sections of the second-instance judgment, applicable legal norms, and case file records.<\/p><div class=\"note\"><strong>Important Reminder:<\/strong>An unfavorable judgment does not necessarily mean that the judgment violates the law; procedural flaws do not mean that all flaws can support a third-instance appeal. It is still necessary to determine the legal nature of the issue, its impact on the judgment, and whether it falls within the scope of a legally permissible claim.<\/div><h2>How should we understand a judgment that does not apply the law or applies it improperly?<\/h2><p>These types of issues focus on whether the court omitted applicable legal norms, or whether, although citing regulations, its interpretation and application of the elements of a crime, legal effects, number of offenses, rules of evidence, or other legal issues were incorrect. Grounds for appeal cannot merely list legal provisions; they should explain the legal interpretation adopted in the original judgment, why that interpretation might be illegal, and how its correct application relates to the judgment&#039;s outcome.<\/p><p>If the dispute is essentially just a request for a new version of the facts, without any identifiable issue of applicable law, it cannot usually be packaged as a third ground for adjudication simply as &quot;error in the application of law&quot;.<\/p><h2>What are the reasons for the judgment that are inadequate or contradictory?<\/h2><p><strong>No reason provided<\/strong>This usually refers to a judgment that lacks the necessary justification for important judgments that should be explained according to law, making it impossible to understand how the court derived its conclusions from evidence and law.<strong>Contradictory reasons<\/strong>This may involve arguments that cannot coexist between different paragraphs of the judgment, the reasons and the main text, or key findings.<\/p><p>A brief judgment does not necessarily mean incomplete reasoning, nor does a difference in wording necessarily constitute a contradiction in reasoning. It is essential to point out the omissions or conflicts, the key points of contention involved, and why the judgment is illegal when it falls under the legally assertable category.<\/p><h2>What problems might arise if crucial evidence that should have been investigated according to law was not investigated?<\/h2><p>If a piece of evidence is materially relevant to the facts to be proven, and the parties have legally requested an investigation or the court has a legal obligation to investigate it, but the judgment failed to address this procedurally, it may be necessary to examine whether there are legal issues such as evidence that should have been investigated on the trial date not being investigated. The analysis should specifically describe the content of the evidence, the facts to be proven, how it was previously presented, how the court handled it, and its connection to the judgment.<\/p><p>Conversely, information that is weakly related to the dispute, repetitive, lacks the necessity for investigation, or is not submitted in accordance with procedures will not automatically constitute a third ground for adjudication simply because the court has not investigated it.<\/p><h2>Why can&#039;t the grounds for appeal in the third instance simply state &quot;the court made a mistake&quot;?<\/h2><p>The grounds for a third-instance appeal must specifically point out where the original judgment violated the law. Practical analysis typically includes: identifying specific sections of the second-instance judgment, explaining the legal or procedural judgments employed, comparing the applicable norms with the case file records, and then demonstrating why the issue might have affected the judgment. Conclusions, emotional expressions of dissatisfaction, or lengthy restates of the case cannot replace this legal argumentation.<\/p><p>therefore,<a href=\"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/criminal\/\">Criminal Trial Lawyer<\/a>During the evaluation process, it is usually necessary to read the first and second instance judgments, the indictment, key documents, important records, and evidence, rather than just listening to oral summaries. Whether any specific issue is valid must be determined based on the actual case file and current laws; there is no guarantee that the case will be accepted, dismissed, or modified.<\/p><\/article>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u8a55\u4f30\u5211\u4e8b\u7b2c\u4e09\u5be9\u4e0a\u8a34\u6642\uff0c\u771f\u6b63\u8981\u554f\u7684\u4e0d\u662f\u300c\u4e8c\u5be9\u5224\u5f97\u516c\u4e0d\u516c\u5e73\u300d\uff0c\u800c\u662f\u4e8c\u5be9\u5224\u6c7a\u6216\u5176\u5be9\u5224\u7a0b\u5e8f\u662f\u5426\u5b58\u5728\u4f9d\u6cd5\u53ef\u4e3b\u5f35\u7684\u9055\u6cd5\u554f\u984c [&hellip;]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5491,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"qubely_global_settings":"","qubely_interactions":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[77],"tags":[71,80,82,79,81],"class_list":["post-8454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-taipei-criminal-lawyer","tag-71","tag-80","tag-82","tag-79","tag-81"],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":6}},"qubely_featured_image_url":{"full":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6.jpg",822,514,false],"landscape":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6.jpg",822,514,false],"portraits":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6-540x320.jpg",540,320,true],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6-300x188.jpg",300,188,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6-768x480.jpg",768,480,true],"large":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6.jpg",822,514,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6.jpg",822,514,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6.jpg",822,514,false],"trp-custom-language-flag":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6-18x12.jpg",18,12,true],"qubely_landscape":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6.jpg",822,514,false],"qubely_portrait":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6-540x320.jpg",540,320,true],"qubely_thumbnail":["https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/\u5211\u4e8b\u88ab\u544a\u5211\u4e8b\u5f8b\u5e2b\u5211\u4e8b\u8faf\u8b77\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6-140x100.jpg",140,100,true]},"qubely_author":{"display_name":"\u53f0\u5317\u5f8b\u5e2b\u63a8\u85a6","author_link":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/author\/admin\/"},"qubely_comment":1,"qubely_category":"<a href=\"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/blog\/category\/taipei-criminal-lawyer\/\" rel=\"category tag\">\u5211\u6cd5\u53ca\u5211\u4e8b\u8a34\u8a1f<\/a>","qubely_excerpt":"\u8a55\u4f30\u5211\u4e8b\u7b2c\u4e09\u5be9\u4e0a\u8a34\u6642\uff0c\u771f\u6b63\u8981\u554f\u7684\u4e0d\u662f\u300c\u4e8c\u5be9\u5224\u5f97\u516c\u4e0d\u516c\u5e73\u300d\uff0c\u800c\u662f\u4e8c\u5be9\u5224\u6c7a\u6216\u5176\u5be9\u5224\u7a0b\u5e8f\u662f\u5426\u5b58\u5728\u4f9d\u6cd5\u53ef\u4e3b\u5f35\u7684\u9055\u6cd5\u554f\u984c&hellip;","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8454","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8454"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8454\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12212,"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8454\/revisions\/12212"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5491"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fdlaw.com.tw\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}