According to Taiwan’s “Zhongshi News Network”, a man surnamed Qiu, who served as a captain and officer of the Fifth Wing of the Taiwan Air Force four years ago, took advantage of the opportunity to apply for a package of cadastral maps related to Hualien Airport to transfer the military to his account to be paid to The manufacturer’s 84,000 yuan (NTD, the same below) was embezzled, and finally the manufacturer demanded, and his aunt paid the public money on his behalf. , deprived of public power for 2 years.
According to reports, in October 2018, Qiu Nan was in charge of handling the work plan for the “Cadastral Map Covering of the Prohibited and Restricted Construction Control Areas of Hualien Airport”, applying for the cadastral map, the cadastral map covering of the prohibited and restricted construction areas, and the production of result maps. Qiu Wei was appointed by a surveying and mapping company. Production, the manufacturer estimated the cost of this case plan to be 84,000 yuan, Qiu also signed the case plan and applied for advance loan.
The report said that after the fifth unit sent money to Qiu Nan, he withdrew the money. After the inspection and acceptance, the manufacturer handed over the invoice to Qiu. Qiu applied for settlement and returned the loan. The Hualien County Government agreed to the drawing before paying the money. In the coming year, the manufacturer sent a letter to the Fifth Wing to ask for the planned payment, and Qiu Cai asked his aunt to remit the money to the manufacturer.
It is reported that the case was transferred by the “Gendarmerie Command” Hualien Gendarmerie. After the prosecution concluded the prosecution, the Hualien District Court of the first instance sentenced Qiu Nan to 5 years and June for “the crime of embezzling public property by active duty soldiers”, and the Hualien High Branch of the second instance considered him. He confessed to the crime of embezzlement, and the proceeds of crime have been remitted to the payee, and the sentence was changed to 5 years. After the appeal, the “Supreme Court” rejected the decision.