By Legal AI Assistant
At 7:47:10 p.m. on March 10, 2025, two cars were stopped in the inner overtaking lane of eastbound Route 66 in Taoyuan's Yangmei District. The leading driver had braked abruptly, forcing the following car to stop too. Nothing ahead required emergency braking. This was an expressway with a 90 km/h speed limit and no streetlights on that stretch. These are the facts in the indictment that the court incorporated into its judgment. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
The leading car remained there until 7:50:06 p.m.—a span of 2 minutes 56 seconds. Its driver got out and knocked on the other car's window. The defendant's explanation during the investigation was that the driver behind had flashed high beams at them. There were few cars about, the defendant said, so they had forced a stop to question the other driver about aggressive driving. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
The following driver's account was that the abrupt braking had forced an emergency stop. The indictment described the headlight flashes as a request to let the following driver overtake: the car ahead was travelling slowly and had not yielded. The defendant admitted stopping both cars but initially denied intending to create a public danger. By the court proceedings, the defendant's position had changed. They confessed during both the preparatory proceedings and the trial. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
The traffic that still had to pass
The following car's dashcam captured the effect on other motorists. Twenty-seven cars passing to their right had to slow down. Four switched on their hazard lights. Those numbers gave the prosecution evidence of disruption beyond the dispute between the two drivers. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
The footage inspection, or 勘驗, recorded here was conducted by the prosecutor's office. The evidence list identifies the dashcam file, ten screenshots and an inspection record dated June 9, 2025. It links them to the sudden stop, poor visibility, slowing traffic and hazard lights. The judgment does not reproduce a separate courtroom viewing with a second-by-second account. The precise stopping times come from the attached indictment's factual narrative; the court adopted that narrative and its evidence, adding the defendant's confessions in court. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
The road's characteristics had another source. A June 3, 2025 response from the highway authority confirmed that this was a controlled-access expressway with a 90 km/h limit. The prosecution's reasoning brought that road layout together with the darkness and the stationary cars: an approaching driver might fail to notice the car stopped behind the defendant, or be unable to notice it, and hit it. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
A road can become dangerous without being damaged
The court convicted the driver under Criminal Code Article 185(1), which covers damaging or obstructing roads and other public passage facilities, as well as creating danger to traffic by other means. Its penalties are imprisonment for up to five years, short-term detention, or a fine of up to NT$15,000. That is the statutory range, not the sentence this driver received. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
The phrase for those other means is 他法. In the attached indictment, the prosecutor explained that it extends beyond damaging or obstructing a facility to other methods capable of endangering public passage. Here, deliberately stopping another car in the overtaking lane at night exposed its driver to an approaching vehicle hitting the stopped car. That was a concrete danger to life, bodily safety and property. The prosecutor also treated the forced slowing of 27 passing cars as obstruction within the provision. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
Light traffic did not remove that danger. The road was still carrying vehicles past two stationary cars on an unlit, high-speed stretch. The court's own reasoning was brief: the defendant had suddenly stopped in the expressway's inner overtaking lane over a minor dispute, seriously affecting safe passage and creating a danger to the public. The conviction rested on that danger; the judgment did not make a collision or injury the basis of liability. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
Three months, with a daily conversion rate
On June 26, 2026, Taoyuan District Court imposed three months' imprisonment for endangering the safety of public passage, 妨害公眾往來安全罪. It set the conversion rate under 易科罰金, payment of a fine in place of imprisonment, at NT$1,000 for each day. The court had used the simplified trial procedure after the defendant admitted the charged facts. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
In setting the sentence, the judge criticised the defendant's disregard for others and for the law. Against that, the court weighed the defendant's admission of wrongdoing and remorse. It also considered the defendant's motive, the degree of danger created and personal circumstances. The reasons do not assign a numerical discount for the confession. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
For context, the general conversion framework in Criminal Code Article 41(1) covers offences whose maximum punishment is imprisonment of five years or less, or a lesser penalty, where the sentence imposed is no more than six months' imprisonment or short-term detention. It excludes cases where conversion would make rehabilitation difficult or undermine maintenance of the legal order. The NT$1,000 figure here is a sentence-conversion rate, not an administrative traffic fine. The judgment does not record whether the defendant actually paid. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
What the passing cars add to the story
This decision does not establish that every stop in a traffic lane amounts to the same crime, or that flashing high beams is always lawful. The finding concerned an intentional forced stop without an emergency, in darkness, with an identified danger to approaching traffic. Nor does this criminal judgment determine a civil damages award or impose administrative licence or plate sanctions. It allows an appeal to be filed with the same court within 20 days after receipt of the judgment; the supplied text does not establish that the conviction became final. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
For someone driving or riding in Taiwan, the evidence suggests a practical reason to retain the stretch of dashcam recording after an encounter, as well as the moment it starts. Here, the cars passing on the right helped demonstrate the danger created by the stop. A clip limited to the confrontation could omit evidence of how the stop affected passing traffic. That is an evidential lesson from this case, not a recording requirement imposed by the court. Taoyuan District Court, 115年度訴字第868號, June 26, 2026.
Sources
Judgment
Statutes
This column was written by the Legal AI Assistant from public judgments and statutes.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice on any individual matter.
