Sunday, February 22, 2026

19860312-20260222

 Mandai Crematorium - Cremation Schedule - Friday, 27 February 2026 


Service Hall

Time

Applicant's Name

Deceased's Name

Service Hall 3

09:40 AM

HOSANNA ETERNAL SERVICES PTE. LTD.

WANG YOU PENG

Service Hall 3

10:20 AM

DELICATE FUNERAL SERVICES PTE. LTD.

SOH KUM THONG

Service Hall 3

11:00 AM

YONGFUFUNERALSERVICE

HO AH LIANG

Service Hall 3

11:40 AM

MING BEREAVEMENT SERVICES AND TRANSPORT

HAN DAK KWAI

Service Hall 3

12:20 PM

SINGAPORE FUNERAL GROUP PTE. LTD.

LILIA FARM AI WEN

Service Hall 3

01:00 PM

SHALOM FUNERAL SERVICES PTE. LTD.

ANG CHIN HWA

Service Hall 3

01:40 PM

THEFUNERALCOMPANY PTE. LTD.

ERIC LIM TZIT YUNG

Service Hall 3

02:20 PM

ALLIANCE CASKET & FUNERALS PTE. LTD.

PONG LAI LIN

Service Hall 3

03:00 PM

SERENITY CASKET & FUNERALS PTE. LIMITED

SIEW LOON SOON

Service Hall 3

03:45 PM

ALVRON BEREAVEMENT SERVICES

IVON JOHN LOPEZ

Service Hall 3

04:30 PM

CASKET FAIRPRICE PTE. LTD.

LEE JONG WAN @ LEE JONG CHUAN

Service Hall 3

05:15 PM

CASKET FAIRPRICE PTE. LTD.

CHAN PENG YEW

Service Hall 3

06:00 PM

PROMISEDLAND CASKET, FUNERALS & PARLOUR SERVICES PTE. LTD.

LAI SAU YEE

Service Hall 3

06:45 PM

LITTLE INDIA CASKET SERVICES

NAVARATNASINGAM S/O SELVARAJAH


Sunday, July 20, 2025

1987-20250721

疑約西門町旅館開毒趴 1死1送醫
2025-07-22 00:27 聯合報

黃姓、朱姓男子投宿台北市西門町某旅館,昨天凌晨旅館工作人員發現黃陳屍房間床上,朱神智不清;警方在現場找到疑似神仙水、依托咪酯類「喪屍煙彈」等毒品,懷疑二人開毒趴,黃施用毒品過量致死,檢方指示解剖查明死因。

警方調查,卅八歲黃男本月十八日傍晚六時許投宿成都路某旅館,卅五歲朱姓男子後來進入房間,另一名男性友人隔天進房直到廿日離開,因聯絡不上兩人致電旅館;旅館人員昨凌晨零時許按門鈴未獲回應,持鑰匙開房門,見黃躺床沒反應、朱倒地神智不清,撥打一一九。

消防隊抵達發現黃明顯死亡,警方到場將朱帶回萬華警分局西門町派出所,發現他反應遲鈍、無法正常應答,他稱身體不適,經通報消防隊送醫住院;員警隨後在房內發現疑似神仙水一瓶、喪屍煙彈兩顆及安非他命吸食器,查扣送驗,並查出朱是毒品通緝犯。

員警派員到醫院戒護,朱稱施用毒品後昏睡,不清楚黃的狀況,警方採集尿液送驗,詢後由檢察官視訊開庭歸案,後續依毒品罪函送。

由於房內無打鬥痕跡,二人無明顯外傷,警方懷疑開毒趴,黃施用毒品過量致死,通知曾入房男子調查,並持續調閱監視器,釐清有無其他人出入。檢方昨相驗黃男遺體後指示暫冰存遺體,擇期解剖。

-----------------

西門町旅館毒趴命案震撼後續! 橫死地板裸男竟是消防署科員
2025/07/23 15:49 壹蘋新聞網 

台北市西門町一間旅館日前凌晨發生一起毒趴命案,38歲黃姓男子與35歲朱姓男子相約入住成都路一處旅館,由於退房時間到仍未見2人身影,服務人員入房查看後卻發現2人赤裸倒在地上,警消獲報趕抵,黃男已明顯死亡,朱男則口吐白沫陷入昏迷,員警也在現場發現包括神仙水、安非他命和喪屍煙彈等毒品,2人疑吸毒過量才釀下悲劇,而黃姓死者如今身分曝光,竟是在消防署上班的科員,不過該署對此相當低調,認為純屬科員個人私事,不予回應。

據了解,黃男與朱男兩人為同性情侶關係,日前相約至西門町成都路上一間旅館休息,但直至退房時間都未見出面辦理,業者人員經電話聯繫數次未果,便到房內查看狀況,卻驚見2人雙雙倒臥地面。

警方獲報後趕抵,發現其中黃男已明顯死亡,朱男則口吐白沫、失去意識昏迷,於是便緊急將朱男送醫搶救,才順利從鬼門關拉回。

警方在現場發現多項毒品,包括有神仙水、安非他命和喪屍菸彈等,研判兩人疑似吸毒過量才鑄下悲劇。

據指出,黃男的身份曝光,竟為消防署秘書室的科員,為公務人員身分,而35歲朱男雖非非警消,但疑為一名琵琶老師。對此,消防署僅低調表示,全案屬科員私事,不予回應。

-----------------

西門町旅館1死1昏迷!死者是消防署科員 與同性伴侶開毒趴喪命
ETtoday新聞雲
2025年07月23日 16:15

黃姓男子21日被發現陳屍北市西門町一家旅館,現場還有另名男子神智不清,警方調查發現,2人是已登記領證的同性伴侶,死者任職在消防署的科員,現場則留有各類混合毒品。

警方調查,38歲的黃姓男子以及35歲的朱姓男子,2人為合法登記的同性伴侶,但是在18日相約到西門町一家旅館投宿,一口氣租下8天的房間,但是卻在21日凌晨卻疑因吸毒,導致一死一昏迷。

警方也追查當天進出人員,發現兩人在18日入住之後,在19日有1名30歲的林姓男子前往2人房間,20日才離開旅館,但是該名林姓男子在20日晚上又要聯繫兩人卻失聯,在21日凌晨才通知旅館人員協助開門查看。

結果進入後發現黃姓男子已經沒有呼吸心跳明顯死亡,另外朱姓男子則是無法言語、身體不適,緊急由救護人員協助送往醫院急救,所幸經過搶救後並無大礙。

警方也在現場發現各類毒品,其中包括安非他命吸食器、G水、俗稱「喪屍煙彈」的依托咪酯毒品,警方也通知林到案說明,林則解釋當天是去找朋友,並沒有吸食毒品,警方也依規定採尿,並將朱、林2人依毒品罪送辦。

據悉,朱、黃2人為合法登記的同性伴侶,黃是74期警大消防系的畢業生,原本任職於內政部消防署綜合企劃科擔任科員,後續又在2017年轉調任內政部消防署秘書室,同樣擔任科員職務,警方也將持續追查毒品來源。

-----------------

同志伴侶西門町開毒趴鬧出人命! 消防科員暴斃伴侶是毒品通緝犯
周刊王CTWANT
2025年7月23日 週三 下午5:45

情侶開房意外鬧出人命!北市萬華區西門町一間旅館內,房務人員21日凌晨發現一對先前進房休息的38歲黃姓男子與35歲朱姓男子,屢次按鈴均無回應,只好開門進入,卻發現2人不省人事,其中一人還無生命跡象,嚇得緊急報警處理。警消到場後,確認黃姓男子已明顯死亡,並將神智不清的朱姓男子緊急送醫,警方也同步在2人的房間內搜出大量毒品,不排除疑似吸毒過量釀禍。據了解,暴斃的38歲黃姓男子其身分後續也被證實為消防署的科員,而其35歲的朱姓男子則因毒品案件遭到通緝。

據了解,有毒品前科,並因毒品案件遭到台北地檢署通緝的35歲朱姓男子與38歲的消防署黃姓科員,2人為登記的同志伴侶,2人原定在18日至25日入住西門町成都路一間旅館,同時邀請在交友軟體上認識的30歲林姓男子一起同樂。林男19日進入房間後,直到20日晚間才短暫離開房間,直到接近21日凌晨準備返回房間時,卻遲遲等不到房間內的人出來應門,無奈之下只好找來房務協助開門,孰料一開門就驚見2人倒臥在地,而黃男更是已明顯死亡。

據悉,林男聲稱其到場時,就有看到桌上擺有毒品,不過整個過程中他均未參與吸食,黃男疑似因此吸毒過量,不慎暴斃。警消到場時,其已明顯死亡,而朱男直到警方獲報上門均仍神智不清,被警消送醫急救。

警方到場後勘驗現場,也在房間內發現大量毒品,包含神仙水、安非他命、依托咪酯與針筒等毒品,不排除為吸毒過量所致。至於詳細事故原因與毒品來源均仍有待進一步調查釐清。

-----------------

99 年 2 月份人事異動
姓名 原職 新職 生效日期
黃璿穎 空白 內政部消防署資訊室 科員 98/11/26

-----------------

106 年 8 月份消防人事異動
姓名 原職 新職 生效日期
黃璿穎 內政部消防署綜合企劃組 科員 內政部消防署秘書室 科員 106-8-1

-----------------

職稱 姓名 任職機關(單位) 任職職務 採購證照 電話 電子信箱
稽查人員 黃璿穎 消防署 秘書室科員 基礎資格 (02)8195-9119#6442 shainyin@nfa.gov.tw

-----------------

臺北市殯葬管理處懷愛館冷藏室冰櫃
資料查詢時間 :2025/7/24 上午 12:04:02
2583 黃璿穎[男]
2539 黃璿穎[男]

-----------------

裁判字號:臺灣新北地方法院 113 年訴字第 1197 號刑事判決
臺灣新北地方法院刑事判決
113年度訴字第1197號
公  訴  人  臺灣新北地方檢察署檢察官
被      告  朱惠駿
選任辯護人  陳稚平律師

上列被告因違反毒品危害防制條例案件,經臺灣臺北地方檢察署檢察官提起公訴(臺灣臺北地方檢察署113年度偵字第27830號),因管轄錯誤,經臺灣臺北地方法院判決移送前來,本院判決如下:
  主 文
朱惠駿犯販賣第二級毒品罪,處有期徒刑6年2月。
未扣案之犯罪所得新臺幣6,500元沒收,於全部或一部不能沒收或不宜執行沒收時,追徵其價額。
  犯罪事實
朱惠駿明知甲基安非他命係毒品危害防制條例第2條第2項第2款所列管之第二級毒品,依法不得販賣,竟意圖營利,基於販賣第二級毒品之犯意,於民國112年9月10日19時36分許以通訊軟體LINE(下稱LINE)與莊立尉聯繫,雙方約定以1公克新臺幣(下同)1,300元之價格交易甲基安非他命5公克後,朱惠駿隨即前往莊立尉之友人位在新北市○○區○○路000號後方之住處與莊立尉交易,由朱惠駿將甲基安非他命5公克交與莊立尉,莊立尉則交付現金6,500元之價金與朱惠駿。
  理 由
一、證據能力:
 ㈠按被告以外之人於審判外之言詞或書面陳述,除法律有規定者外,不得作為證據;被告以外之人於偵查中向檢察官所為之陳述,除顯有不可信之情況者外,得為證據,刑事訴訟法第159條第1項、第159條之1第2項分別定有明文。再被告以外之人於偵查中向檢察官所為之陳述,因檢察官代表國家偵查犯罪時,原則上當能遵守法定程序,且被告以外之人如有具結能力,仍應依法具結,以擔保其係據實陳述,故於第159條之1第2項明定「除顯有不可信之情況者外」,得為證據;又被告以外之人於檢察事務官、司法警察官或司法警察調查中所為之陳述,基於實體發現真實之訴訟目的,依第159條之2規定,如與審判中之陳述不符時,經比較結果,其先前之陳述,相對「具有較可信之特別情況」,且為證明犯罪事實存否所「必要」者,或於審判中有第159條之3所列死亡等原因而無法或拒絕陳述之各款情形之一,經證明其調查中所為陳述絕對「具有可信之特別情況」,且為證明犯罪事實之存否所「必要」者,亦例外地賦與證據能力。是所謂「顯有不可信性」、「相對特別可信性」與「絕對特別可信性」,係指陳述是否出於供述者之真意、有無違法取供情事之信用性而言,故應就偵查或調查筆錄製作之原因、過程及其功能等加以觀察其信用性,據以判斷該傳聞證據是否有顯不可信或有特別可信之情況而例外具有證據能力,並非對其陳述內容之證明力如何加以論斷,二者之層次有別,不容混淆。
 ⒈證人莊立尉於警詢所為陳述,屬審判外之陳述,被告朱惠駿及其辯護人於本院準備程序時既否認其證據能力,而公訴人並未主張前開證人審判外證述有何例外得為證據之情形,依刑事訴訟法第159條第1項之規定,自不得為證據。
 ⒉證人莊立尉於偵查中向檢察官所為之陳述,已依法具結,被告及其辯護人並未主張檢察官有何違法取得前開證人陳述之情形,自無顯不可信之情況。況前開證人嗣於本院審理業已到庭具結為證,經被告及其辯護人對之交互詰問,已保障被告於訴訟上之程序權,補正未經被告對質詰問之瑕疵,本院審酌前開供述證據作成時之情況,並無不能自由陳述之情形,亦無違法取證或其他瑕疵,認為以之作為證據為適當,自得為證據。
 ㈡本判決所依憑判斷之文書證據,查無有何違反法定程序取得之情形,且各該證據均經本院於審判期日依法進行證據之調查、辯論,被告於訴訟上之防禦權,已受保障,故該等證據資料均有證據能力。
二、認定犯罪事實所憑之證據及理由:
  被告固坦承其有於上揭時間以LINE與莊立尉聯繫後至上揭地點與莊立尉見面之事實,惟否認有何販賣第二級毒品犯行,辯稱:我是賣清潔劑給莊立尉等語。被告之辯護人則為被告辯稱:證人莊立尉就毒品交易數量及價格前後所述均不一致,有重大瑕疵,難以採信,且莊立尉係於112年9月10日凌晨施用甲基安非他命,則莊立尉於該次施用之甲基安非他命豈可能係被告於同日晚間所交付等語。經查:
 ㈠被告有於上揭時間以LINE與莊立尉聯繫後至上揭地點與證人莊立尉見面之事實,業據被告於偵查及本院準備程序時坦承不諱(見臺灣臺北地方檢察署【下稱臺北地檢】偵卷第172至174頁、本院卷第55頁),核與證人莊立尉、黃璿穎於偵查或本院審理時之證述情節大致相符(見臺北地檢偵卷第
  210、258至259頁、本院卷第137至139、144、201至202頁),並有被告與莊立尉之LINE對話紀錄擷圖、監視器畫面擷圖、被告所騎乘機車之租用資料、被告持用門號之通聯調閱查詢單及網路歷程查詢資料在卷可稽(見臺北地檢偵卷第87至89、93至96頁、他卷第43至44、45頁),是此部分事實,應堪認定。
 ㈡被告有於上揭時間以LINE與莊立尉約定以1公克1,300元之價格交易甲基安非他命5公克後,被告隨即前往上揭地點與莊立尉交易,由被告將甲基安非他命5公克交與莊立尉,莊立尉則交付現金6,500元之價金與被告,說明如下:
 ⒈觀諸被告(LINE暱稱:「廷緯」)與莊立尉於112年9月10之LINE對話內容,雙方於該日13時46分至23時42分間曾有以下對話(見臺北地檢偵卷第87至89頁):「
  (廷緯)打給姊姊唷
      三重區重新路二段87號
      他在這等你
  (莊立尉)有差額
       被跳
  (廷緯)?
  (莊立尉)就是原本要拿給朋友,可是居然都沒有消息,然後,我想要問的是姐那半是多少啊,因為要拿的話變成有差額,一定會有差額(語音)
  (廷緯)你看你有多少
      東在我這
      但價就是
      貴了
  (莊立尉)價
       多少
  (廷緯)22
  (莊立尉)我可以幫忙吃下一些
  (廷緯)你看你那
      單價就跟你一樣湊足變1300唷
      為什麼是有賺沒賺 都是我在奔波(表情貼圖)
  (莊立尉)你看你什麼時候在台北
  (廷緯)我等等可以拿去
      拜託讓我有錢還我自己這邊原本的帳
  (莊立尉)時間?
  (廷緯).....結果房間錢是我付
   (莊立尉)?
       錯頻?
  (廷緯)沒有
  (莊立尉)語音(取消)
  (廷緯)我只是跟你說
      成本23500
  (莊立尉)什麼啊
       你有要來找我嗎
  (廷緯)要
  (莊立尉)幾時
  (廷緯)12前
      你在哪裡
  (莊立尉)店裡 正要移動到永和
       還是你順路
  (廷緯)永和位置
  (莊立尉)你不載我喔= =
  (廷緯)我在三重
      但我是騎go share
      (語音通話1:13)
  (莊立尉)234新北市○○區○○路000號
  (廷緯)(語音通話0:40)
      欸欸欸
      改保平路
  (莊立尉)幹
       ...
  (廷緯)啊你錢有多少
      我突然旁邊
      有人要
      我怕拖到你
      我在這裝好
      (貼圖)
  (莊立尉)五個給我就好
  (廷緯)了解
      我半小時到
  (莊立尉)(語音通話1:28)
       朋友這可留
       你要留下嗎玩嗎
  (廷緯)(貼圖)
  (莊立尉)什麼意思
       ?
       人呢
  (廷緯)要過去了抱歉
  (莊立尉)恩
  (廷緯)15分鐘
      (語音通話0:04)
  (莊立尉)幫我買個蔓越莓欸
       想喝酸的
  (廷緯)這是有喜了
  (莊立尉)你的孩子
  (廷緯)你的孩子不是你的孩子
      (語音通話1:44)
  (莊立尉)頂樓」。
  而證人莊立尉於113年9月4日偵查中證稱:我於112年9月13日被扣案的毒品是被告於同年月10日跟他男朋友拿到新北市永和區我朋友家頂樓加蓋給我的,就是對話紀錄中提到的「新北市○○區○○路000號」地址,「五個給我就好」是指跟他拿5克1萬2,000元的安非他命,我當天是拿現金1萬2,000元給被告,他拿5包安非他命給我等語(見臺北地檢偵卷第210頁);於113年9月12日偵查中證稱:警察於112年9月13日到我店裡搜索扣到的安非他命是我跟被告購買並施用剩下的,對話紀錄中的「打給姊姊唷」是因為被告的毒品是跟一個叫「姊姊」的人拿的,「22」是指2萬2,「單價就跟你一樣湊足變1300唷」是指平均單價算下來1克安非他命等於1,300元,「成本23500」是被告跟我說他拿安非他命的成本,但我當天沒有跟他買那麼多,「五個給我就好」是我跟被告要5克安非他命,「新北市○○區○○路000號」是一間7-11,我朋友家在7-11後面,我是先到我朋友家樓上等他,後續被告跟一個朋友到,我當時是跟被告買5公克安非他命,我給他6,500元等語(見北檢偵卷第257至259頁);於本院114年3月20日、同年4月17日審理時證稱:上開對話紀錄是我要跟被告買安非他命5克,「1300」是指1克1,300元,我這次是跟被告約在朋友家交易,就是對話紀錄中的「新北市○○區○○路000號」地址,「成本23500」是指安非他命的成本等語(見本院卷第142至144、200至201、207頁)。
 ⒉而被告於偵查中供稱:「東」講的就是安非他命,「22」我不記得是數量還是金錢,「單價就跟你一樣湊足變1300唷、我等等可以拿去」指的就是我跟他說安非他命1克是1300,「我等等可以拿去」在講拿去看要不要跟莊立尉一起用用看,我沒有要跟莊立尉拿錢,因為他不會理我,我說「成本23500」是在跟他說我拿的安非他命成本,「23500」是半台,應該是17公克,我們這段對話在討論安非他命的價錢等語(見北檢偵卷第173至174頁),核與證人莊立尉證稱其有於該日以LINE與被告討論安非他命之價格後,由被告攜帶安非他命至其友人住處等語大致相符。又觀諸上開對話紀錄之內容,被告曾提及「單價就跟你一樣湊足變1300唷」,及證人莊立尉稱「五個給我就好」,亦與證人莊立尉於113年9月12日偵查中及本院審理時證稱其係以1公克1,300元之價格向被告購買甲基安非他命5公克等語相符,且被告亦自承上開對話紀錄中所提及「價就跟你一樣湊足變1300唷」係指「安非他命1克是1300」;佐以證人莊立尉證稱其向被告購買並施用所剩之甲基安非他命(即莊立尉於112年9月13日11時許經臺北市政府警察局松山分局中崙派出所扣得之白色結晶5袋),其驗前總淨重約3.735公克,略少於5公克,且經鑑驗結果確含有第二級毒品甲基安非他命成分等情,復有臺北市政府警察局松山分局中崙派出所搜索、扣押筆錄暨扣押物品目錄表、交通部民用航空局航空醫務中心毒品鑑定書在卷可稽(見臺北地檢他卷第25至27頁、偵卷第303頁),是證人莊立尉上開關於其於上揭時、地以1公克1,300元之價格與被告交易甲基安非他命5公克之證述內容不僅前後證述大致相符,亦與上開事證相符,且證人莊立尉於偵查及本院審理時均以證人身分經過具結作證,擔保其所言為真實,實無刻意虛構事實陷害被告而甘冒偽證罪刑責之理;參以被告於偵查中供稱:我17歲就認識莊立尉,我們沒有仇恨關係等語(見北檢偵卷第171頁),是證人莊立尉證稱其係以1公克1,300元之價格向被告購買甲基安非他命5公克,由被告將甲基安非他命5公克交與莊立尉,莊立尉則交付現金6,500元之價金與被告等語,應堪採信。 
 ⒊至證人黃璿穎雖於本院審理時證稱:被告有於上揭時、地拿清潔劑給莊立尉,除清潔劑外,我沒有看到被告拿其他東西給莊立尉等語(見本院卷第137至138頁),然其亦證稱:當時我們進去後,我在門口附近低頭玩手機聽他們說話,大概聊一下後就聽到他們說要去講悄悄話,我知道他們是進去小房間聊一下,我沒有注意他們交談的內容等語(見本院卷第139至140頁),核與被告於本院準備程序時供稱:當天我有與莊立尉至小房間談話約5至10分鐘,黃璿穎當時並未在場等語(見本院卷第58頁)大致相符,是被告自得於黃璿穎低頭使用手機或其與莊立尉進入小房間時將甲基安非他命交付與莊立尉,證人黃璿穎上開證述自不足為有利被告之認定。
 ⒋從而,被告有於上揭時間以LINE與莊立尉聯繫,雙方約定以1公克1,300元之價格交易甲基安非他命5公克後,被告隨即前往上揭地點與莊立尉交易,由被告將甲基安非他命5公克交與莊立尉,莊立尉則交付現金6,500元之價金與被告之事實,應堪認定;被告上開所辯顯與事實不符,並不足採。 
 ⒌至辯護人雖為被告辯稱:證人莊立尉對於交付毒品之方式及價金於警詢及偵查中之證述不一而有重大瑕疵等語,然證人莊立尉就其與被告交易安非他命之數量為5公克一情前後證述均屬一致,且證人莊立尉於113年9月12日偵查中及本院審理時均證稱其係以1公克1,300元之價格與被告交易安非他命,此情亦與上開事證互核相符,業經本院說明如前;參以證人莊立尉於本院審理時證稱:我不避諱說我每天都有施用甲基安非他命等語(見本院卷第206頁),是依證人莊立尉施用甲基安非他命之頻率,其應係經常向他人購買甲基安非他命,且毒品價格會隨時間浮動,此情並與被告與證人莊立尉於上開對話紀錄中討論毒品價格之情節相符,自難期待證人莊立尉能夠清楚記憶每次交易毒品之方式及價金,而不能以其於警詢及偵查中關於交易毒品之方式或價金有部分不一致之情形,遽認其所為證述均不可採信;又辯護人雖為被告辯稱:依臺灣臺北地方法院112年度毒聲字第599號刑事裁定之記載,證人莊立尉於112年9月13日遭逮捕前最後一次施用安非他命之時間為同年月10日凌晨,然本案起訴書記載被告交付毒品之時間為同日晚間,足證證人莊立尉證稱其有施用被告交付之毒品之內容係不實的等語,然上開裁定並未記載莊立尉該次施用甲基安非他命係其遭逮捕前最後一次施用(見臺北地檢偵卷第297至298頁),且證人莊立尉於本院審理時亦證稱:這是其中一次,我不避諱說我每天都有施用甲基安非他命等語(見本院卷第206頁),自無從以上開裁定記載莊立尉施用甲基安非他命之時間係於被告交付甲基安非他命與證人莊立尉之前,即推認證人莊立尉證稱其有施用被告所交付毒品之證述為不實,是辯護人上開所辯均不足採。
 ㈢被告為本案販賣毒品犯行時主觀上有營利意圖,說明如下:
 ⒈按我國法令對販賣毒品者臨以嚴刑,惟毒品仍無法禁絕,其原因實乃販賣毒品存有巨額之利潤可圖,故販賣毒品者,如非為巨額利潤,必不冒此重刑之險,是以有償販賣毒品者,除非另有反證證明其出於非圖利之意思而為,概皆可認其係出於營利之意而為(最高法院93年度台上字第1651號、87年度台上字第3164號判決意旨參照)。另按販賣第二級毒品屬違法行為,非可公然為之,亦無公定價格,販賣者販入後可任意分裝增減其份量再行出售,而每次交易之價格、數量,亦隨時依交易對象、當時行情而變動,縱或出售之價格較低,亦非當然無營利意圖,即便為相同價格,若份量較少亦能從中獲利,況一般民眾均知政府一向對毒品查禁森嚴,且重罰不予寬貸,以目前毒品危害防制條例對於販賣第二級毒品罪所科處之重刑(處10年以上有期徒刑,得併科新臺幣1,500萬元以下罰金)而言,衡情倘非有利可圖,絕無平白甘冒被嚴查重罰高度風險之理;被告為智識能力正常且有社會歷練經驗之成年人,對該等情事當知之甚明,若非有利可圖,豈會甘冒重刑之處罰而從事前開販毒行為,足見其主觀上確具有營利之意圖無疑。
 ⒉至辯護人固為被告辯稱:對話紀錄中提及成本是2萬3,500元,在此之前有提到數量是17公克,換算下來1公克的成本是1,382元,倘被告以1公克1,300元之價格販賣與莊立尉,亦不足以認定被告主觀上有營利之意圖等語。惟查,觀諸被告與莊立尉之上開對話紀錄內容,莊立尉於112年9月7日12時29分許以語音訊息詢問「所以重量是幾台」時,被告回覆「17」(見臺北地檢偵卷第85頁),觀其前後語意,尚難認被告所稱「17」係指17公克,且上開對話之時間為112年9月7日,亦難認上開對話內容與被告於112年9月10日販賣甲基安非他命與莊立尉之事實有何直接關聯;又甲基安非他命無公定價格,販賣者販入後可任意分裝增減其份量再行出售,即便為相同價格,若份量較少亦能從中獲利,業經本院說明如前,是即便被告以2萬3,500元購入甲基安非他命之數量為17公克,亦可任意分裝增減其份量再行出售與莊立尉而從中獲利,辯護人上開所辯自不足採。
 ㈣從而,本案事證明確,被告之犯行堪以認定,應依法論科。
三、論罪科刑:
 ㈠核被告所為,係犯毒品危害防制條例第4條第2項之販賣第二級毒品罪。被告販賣前意圖販賣而持有第二級毒品之低度行為,為販賣之高度行為所吸收,不另論罪。
 ㈡本件有刑法第59條規定適用之說明:
 ⒈按刑法第59條規定犯罪之情狀可憫恕者,得酌量減輕其刑,其所謂「犯罪之情狀」,與同法第57條規定科刑時應審酌之一切情狀,並非有截然不同之領域,於裁判上酌減其刑時,應就犯罪一切情狀,予以全盤考量,審酌其犯罪有無可憫恕之事由,即有無特殊之原因與環境,在客觀上足以引起一般同情,以及宣告法定低度刑,是否猶嫌過重等等,以為判斷(最高法院99年度台上字第6420判決意旨參照)。
 ⒉查被告無視我國杜絕毒品危害之禁令,為本件販賣甲基安非他命犯行,所為固屬不當,應予非難,然考量其販賣之對象為友人,且數量甚微、金額不高,較諸大量持有毒品兜售之毒販而言,容有重大差異,對社會治安及國民健康之危害非重。本院審酌上情,並考量被告之主觀惡性、客觀犯行及犯罪情節,及本案無毒品危害防制條例第17條第2項減輕其刑規定之適用等情,認對被告量處法定最低刑度(有期徒刑10年),猶嫌過重,而有情輕法重之情,難謂符合罪刑相當性及比例原則,更無從與大盤毒梟對於社會治安所造成之危害有所區隔,是被告本件犯罪情狀,衡情尚有可憫恕之處,爰就被告本案販賣毒品犯行,依刑法第59條之規定酌量減輕其刑。 
 ㈢爰以行為人之責任為基礎,審酌被告正值青壯,不思尋求以正當、合法之途徑賺取收入,知悉甲基安非他命為毒品危害防制條例所管制之第二級毒品,使用後極易成癮,濫行施用,非但對施用者身心健康造成傷害,且因其成癮性,常使施用者經濟地位發生實質改變而處於劣勢,而衍生個人家庭悲劇,或導致社會犯罪問題,竟仍無視國家杜絕毒品犯罪之禁令而為本件販賣第二級毒品犯行,所為殊值非難;復考量其素行(見法院前案紀錄表)、本件販賣之價量尚非甚鉅等犯罪情節及其犯後態度、自陳之教育程度、職業及家庭經濟狀況(見本院卷第213頁)等一切情狀,量處如主文所示之刑,以資懲儆。
四、沒收部分:
 ㈠被告本件販賣第二級毒品犯行所得之價金6,500元,為其犯罪所得,然未經扣案,爰依刑法第38條之1第1項前段、第3項之規定宣告沒收,並於全部或一部不能沒收或不宜執行沒收時,追徵其價額。
 ㈡扣案之第二級毒品甲基安非他命5包(驗前總淨重約3.735公克、驗餘總淨重約3.7327公克),經鑑驗結果,確含有第二級毒品甲基安非他命成分,有上開鑑定書1份在卷可稽(見臺北地檢偵卷第303頁),且係被告本件出售牟利之第二級毒品,原應依毒品危害防制條例第18條第1項前段規定沒收銷燬之,惟上開扣案物係莊立尉另案施用毒品經扣案之證物,自宜由檢察官於該案中另為適法之處置,爰不於本案中宣告沒收銷燬。
 ㈢至其餘扣案物,因卷內無證據證明與本案有何直接關聯,爰均不予宣告沒收或銷燬,附此敘明。 
五、不另為無罪諭知部分:
 ㈠公訴意旨另以:被告基於轉讓偽藥兼第三級毒品之犯意,於上揭時、地同時提供含有4-甲基甲基卡西酮之毒品咖啡包與莊立尉試用。因認被告此部分係涉犯毒品危害防制條例第8條第3項之轉讓第三級毒品及藥事法第83條第1項之轉讓偽藥等罪嫌等語。
 ㈡按犯罪事實應依證據認定之,無證據不得認定犯罪事實;不能證明被告犯罪者,應諭知無罪之判決,刑事訴訟法第154 條第2項、第301條第1項分別定有明文。次按認定不利於被告之事實,須依積極證據,苟積極證據不足為不利於被告事實之認定時,即應為有利被告之認定,更不必有何有利之證據(最高法院30年上字第816號判決意旨參照)。又按檢察官就被告犯罪事實,應負舉證責任,並指出證明之方法,刑事訴訟法第161條第1項定有明文。因此,檢察官對於起訴之犯罪事實,應負提出證據及說服之實質舉證責任。倘其所提出之證據,不足為被告有罪之積極證明,或其指出證明之方法,無從說服法院以形成被告有罪之心證,基於無罪推定之原則,自應為被告無罪判決之諭知(最高法院92年台上字第128號判決意旨參照)。
 ㈢公訴意旨認被告另涉犯上開罪嫌,無非係以被告之供述、證人莊立尉之證述、監視器畫面擷圖、被告與莊立尉之LINE對話紀錄擷圖、扣得之毒品咖啡包、臺北市政府警察局松山分局中崙派出所搜索、扣押筆錄暨扣押物品目錄表、112年10月19日交通部民用航空局航空醫務中心航藥鑑字第0000000Q號毒品鑑定書等為其主要論據。
 ㈣被告否認有何轉讓偽藥或第三級毒品犯行,辯稱:沒有此事等語。被告之辯護人則為被告辯稱:證人莊立尉一開始有明確說毒品咖啡包係「邱彥翔」所轉讓的,嗣於近1年後之偵訊筆錄改稱係由被告提供,證人莊立尉所述顯有重大瑕疵而不足採信,且被告遭查獲時並無類似之咖啡包存在,是被告確無轉讓咖啡包與莊立尉之情等語。
 ㈤經查,證人莊立尉雖於113年9月12日偵查中證稱:K他命(經鑑驗後係含第三級毒品4-甲基甲基卡西酮成分,即上開毒品咖啡包)是被告於112年9月10日當面給我的,沒有收錢,他說先給我用用看,之後有需要再跟他買,但LINE對話紀錄沒有講到等語(見臺北地檢偵卷第258頁),然此情為被告所否認,且證人莊立尉於112年9月13日警詢時原係證稱:毒品咖啡包是由「邱彥翔」提供給我的等語(見臺北地檢偵卷第29頁);嗣於本院114年3月20日、同年4月17日審理時證稱:我忘了被告當時有無拿毒品咖啡包給我,我現在忘記毒品咖啡包是誰給我的,我沒有印象有跟被告買過毒品咖啡包,我買甲基安非他命的時候,賣的人有可能會送我毒品咖啡包之類的,被告及「邱彥翔」都曾經送過我毒品咖啡包等語(見本院卷第144、203至205、207至208頁),是證人莊立尉關於上開毒品咖啡包之取得對象前後證述明顯不一致,尚難盡信。又觀諸被告與莊立尉之LINE對話紀錄擷圖,其等均未曾提及毒品咖啡包之事(見臺北地檢偵卷第87至89頁);復遍查卷內事證,除證人莊立尉於113年9月12日偵查中之證述外,並無其餘證據足資補強其前揭證述,自難據此逕認被告有轉讓毒品咖啡包與莊立尉之事實,而不足以使本院形成被告有公訴意旨所指上開犯行之確信心證,惟此部分倘成立犯罪,核與本院前開認定被告所犯販賣第二級毒品罪之犯行間,具有想像競合之裁判上一罪關係,爰不另為無罪之諭知。
據上論斷,應依刑事訴訟法第299條第1項前段,判決如主文。
本案經檢察官劉海倫提起公訴,檢察官廖姵涵到庭執行職務。
中  華  民  國  114  年  5   月  15  日
         刑事第八庭  審判長法 官 曾淑娟
         
                   法 官 王玲櫻
         
                   法 官 莊婷羽
上列正本證明與原本無異。
如不服本判決,應於判決送達後20日內敘明上訴理由,向本院提
出上訴狀 (應附繕本) ,上訴於臺灣高等法院。其未敘述上訴理
由者,應於上訴期間屆滿後20日內向本院補提理由書「切勿逕送
上級法院」。
                   書記官 謝旻汝
中  華  民  國  114  年  5   月  20  日

-----------------

裁判字號:臺灣新北地方法院 114 年司促字第 29864 號民事裁定
臺灣新北地方法院民事裁定
114年度司促字第29864號
債  權  人  渣打國際商業銀行股份有限公司
法定代理人  陳銘僑  

上列債權人聲請對債務人黃璿穎發支付命令事件,本院裁定如下:
  主 文
聲請駁回。
聲請程序費用由債權人負擔。
  理 由
一、按支付命令之聲請,不合於民事訴訟法第508 條至第511 條之規定,或依聲請之意旨認債權人之請求為無理由者,法院應以裁定駁回之;就請求之一部不得發支付命令者,應僅就該部分之聲請駁回之,民事訴訟法第513 條第1 項定有明文。
二、經查,本件債權人聲請對債務人黃璿穎發支付命令,本院查詢戶政資料所示,債務人黃璿穎已於民國114年7月21日死亡,依首開法條規定,債權人對無當事人能力之人聲請核發支付命令,自不應准許,應予駁回。
三、依民事訴訟法第95條、第78條裁定如主文。
四、如不服本裁定,應於送達後10日內,以書狀向司法事務官提出異議,並依新修正民事訴訟法第77條之19規定繳納裁判費新台幣1000元。
中  華  民  國  114  年  11  月  17  日
         民事第九庭司法事務官  李信良

Thursday, December 28, 2023

2001-20231223 (3)

2 Hongkongers remanded in custody over manslaughter case of mainland Chinese student whose body was found in Fanling village


  • Security guard and jobless man appeared at Fanling Court over the suspected killing of 22-year-old Xu Wenjun, who was studying for a master’s degree in city. 
  • Third suspect, 20-year-old student, has been charged with preventing the lawful burial of a body. 


Two middle-aged Hongkongers have been remanded in custody pending a police investigation into the death of a mainland Chinese student, whose body was discovered in a local village on the weekend.

Security guard Kwan Wing-yin, 51, and jobless Cheng See-chung, 62, were among three men escorted to Fanling Court on Thursday morning over the suspected killing of 22-year-old Xu Wenjun, who was studying for a master’s degree in the city.

A charge sheet available for press inspection alleged the pair had unlawfully killed Xu at a house in Fanling Wai village in the northern New Territories on December 23.

Kwan and Cheng have also been charged with preventing the lawful burial of Xu’s body on the same day with the help of two unidentified men, who are still at large.

Third suspect 20-year-old Cheng Ka-fu, who the prosecution said was a student of LiPACE, a community education arm of Hong Kong Metropolitan University, is also facing the same charge.

Kwan is also facing a third charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

Acting principal magistrate Andy Cheng Lim-chi adjourned the case for 12 weeks to allow police to gather evidence, review relevant CCTV footage and locate the two unidentified men.

The two manslaughter suspects did not ask for bail, while the student’s application was dismissed at the prosecution’s request.

The trio will remain in the prison service’s custody until the next hearing in March 2024. They can apply for bail before a High Court judge.

Separately, police on Wednesday evening arrested a 25-year-old man at West Kowloon station on suspicion of being one of the two unknown men who aided in the unlawful disposal of Xu’s body. The suspect remains in detention for questioning.

2001-20231223 (2)

 警拘3男涉非法處理屍體 誤殺等 22歲內地碩士生參加毒品性愛派對 疑注射過量冰毒亡復遭棄屍


【本報記者報道】上水粉嶺圍發生誤殺案,一名內地男碩士生在交友程式結識朋友後,赴約前往粉嶺圍村屋參加一個毒品性愛派對。上周六被發現伏屍在村內一處空地,警方調查後,相信事主曾到附近村屋參加派對,被注射冰毒。警方拘捕3名本地男子涉嫌誤殺、非法處理屍體和販運危險藥物,今日提堂。另外正追查另外2名參與同一派對的男子下落。

警方是在上周六早上8時許接報,指一名男子在粉嶺圍村屋外昏迷不醒,救護員到場證實其死亡。

據了解,男死者為許文俊(22歲),由東莞來港在理工大學修讀碩士課程一年級,租住土瓜灣益豐大廈一單位。警方昨將其中一名疑兇押解到案發現場調查,又帶同假人作案件重組。

死者無著鞋 長褲退至腳踝

警方指,平安夜前夕(23日)的早上8時許,一名處理污水員工行經粉嶺圍村屋2巷17號房屋外時,發現一名昏迷男子(即死者)倒卧地面,男子當時仰臥空地上,無著鞋、褲退至腳踝位置,並無任何隨身物/身份證明文件,報案人報警求助,救護員到場時,死者當場證實已死亡。

經法醫初步檢查,發現死者頭部左後方有一條 4厘米擦傷的傷痕,右大腿有1厘米擦傷痕跡,並無發現明顯致命傷痕。現場亦無打鬥痕跡。警方當時列作屍體發現案,由於現場情況不尋常,案件交由大埔警區重案組第三隊跟進。

翌日、即24日,死者父母從內地到紅磡警署報案,指兒子失蹤,警方循「失蹤人口」揭發死者身份。警方翻查閉路電視片段,發現在22日晚上約11時,死者離開土瓜灣後,在凌晨零時許抵達粉嶺圍,警方調查後,鎖定目標單位調查,隨後拘捕3名涉案男子。

51歲男保安與20歲男護士生為性伴侶

據悉,許文俊早前透過交友程式「Grindr」,結識了2名男子關永賢(51歲,保安員)及鄭嘉富(20歲,護士學校學生),關、鄭兩人疑為性伴侶關係,並租用粉嶺圍一村屋單位共築愛巢。

綜合消息稱,事發於12月22日晚,許文俊、關永賢及鄭嘉富,聯同透過交友程式結識的男子鄭思仲(62歲,侍應),以及另外2名在逃男子,在上述的粉嶺圍村屋2巷23號屋舉行毒品性愛派對。期間,許文俊懷疑被注射過量冰毒而死亡,屋內5人見狀,將死者從村23號村屋移至17 號房屋外,棄屍村內空地,最後被村民揭發事件。除被捕的關永賢、鄭嘉富及鄭思仲外,警方正通緝另外2名涉案男子。

警方在案發單位(23號屋)搜出一包約約8克的冰毒、吸毒工具、性玩具、毛氈及咕????套等。案件仍在調查。大埔警區助理指揮官(刑事)鍾志強稱,發現死者的位置跟案發現場距離不超過20米,3名被捕人士有無吸食冰毒或者精神狀態,都是調查方向。

Wednesday, December 27, 2023

2001-20231223 (1)

粉嶺圍命案|內地碩士生倒斃空地 報案人:以為佢飲醉酒凍死!


22歲內地碩士生在交友程式結識朋友,赴約前往粉嶺圍村屋參與派對,上周六(23日)早上被發現倒斃村內一處空地。發現屍體的鄭先生形容,死者僅穿三角內褲、面向天臥地,由於前一晚天氣寒冷,以為有人醉酒凍死街頭,沒料到是與毒品派對有關。他引述村民指,村內不時有噪音滋擾,周圍都貼上禁止醉酒鬧事的告示。

「以為佢(死者)凍死囉,啲村民成日喺度屙尿㗎嘛,以為佢飲醉酒臥低咗凍死咗之嘛。」鄭先生透露,死者被發現時頭向通道,腳向內,面部朝天;耳朵、嘴唇及手已經發黑「僵硬晒、死直咗」,身上只穿着黑色三角內褲和黑色衛衣。

由於前一晚冬至日(22日)天氣寒冷,鄭先生原以為死者是凍死:「因為你個人凍到嘴唇黑晒、耳黑晒、手黑晒,咁基本上習慣都係估佢凍死㗎啦,22號晚咁凍,係咪先?咁佢著條底褲,著件黑色衛衣,咁凍如果畀我都凍死啦,係咪先?我以為佢暈咗凍死之嘛。」

據鄭先生了解,死者並非粉嶺圍租客,只是到一名租客的單位玩樂。他引述村民指,村內不時有噪音滋擾,「成日村長都講啲人飲醉酒大聲喧嘩」,周圍都貼上禁止醉酒鬧事的告示。




《香港01》獨家取得事主伏屍空地的照片,屍首由白布遮蔽,顯然經已死去。空地放滿建築廢料,屍體被置於一旁。據知情人士透露,一名渠務工人上周六(23日)8時許到粉嶺圍開工時,見到一名青年倒臥村屋對開空地,於是通知村民。村民見事主已無知覺所以報警。當時事主身穿黑色上衣、牛仔褲、黑色內褲;腹部露出,手指已經發紫。警方其後拘捕3人士均涉嫌非法處理屍體,其中兩人另涉誤殺及販毒,明日提堂。

消息指死者的父母在12月24日因與兒子失聯,由東莞來港到紅磡警署報警。警方帶假人公仔到場、押疑犯回村屋案情重組探員將蒙黑色頭套的疑兇帶落車,將他押返村屋重組案情。

Saturday, August 12, 2023

2000-20230812

26 May 2020 


Republic Polytechnic - SAS grad Sean Kee credits RP for helping to “transform [his] burning passion for Marine Science, which started as a childhood hobby into a career goal”. His passion for marine science was nurtured by his grandfather who helped keep his home aquarium well-stocked with fish. Much like his passion, this home aquarium grew from the tiny goldfish bowl he had as a kid to what he now calls “a monstrous three foot fish tank”.

As a Diploma in Marine Science and Aquaculture student, Sean didn’t just excel in class, earning many accolades along the way, he was also actively participated in CCA activities and displayed his passion for marine conservation. As President of the Marine Science interest group, Sean organised a series of beach clean-ups and participated in public events aimed to increase awareness on horseshoe crab conservation.

Congrats on your graduation Sean. Well done Class of 2020! #RPgrad20 #DiscoverRP #RPpride

-----------------


Mr Sean Kee Yi He
Age: 23


Called home to be with the Lord on Saturday, 12 August 2023
Dearly missed and fondly remembered by loved ones.

CONDOLENCES: Words of comfort & memories for the family may be shared at this link: https://agbc.life/AG5741CARD

WAKE VISITATION TIMES: Monday, 14 August 2023, 12.00 pm to 10.00 pm

WAKE SERVICE: Monday, 14 August 2023 at 8.00 pm

at Shalom Hall @ level 3, Church of the Epiphany, 407 Jln Kayu, Singapore 799512

FUNERAL SERVICE: Tuesday, 15 August 2023
Encoffin at 8.30 am
Cortege leaves from Wake at 8.45 am to Mandai Crematorium Service Hall 04 for Cremation Service from 9.25 am to 9.55 am

-----------------


The Straits Times 
Published Dec 27, 2023, 01:46 PM
Updated Dec 27, 2023, 03:39 PM

SINGAPORE – A former minimart owner, who made the headlines in 2015 when he lost a finger to frostbite while cleaning an ice cream freezer, is back in the news – for allegedly taking the belongings of a dead man.

Ng Hoe Ghee was charged on Dec 27.

The 51-year-old is alleged to have dishonestly misappropriated a haversack, laptop, two phones and other items, including writing material and an exam schedule, that belonged to Mr Sean Kee Yi He on Aug 12 at Block 105 Henderson Crescent.

Court documents did not provide further details of Mr Kee, who is believed to have been a student in his 20s at the time of his death.

Ng was charged with two counts of dishonest misappropriation and one count of unauthorised access to computer material.

He is also alleged to have dishonestly misappropriated a phone, a flash memory card and two amulets belonging to a woman on Jan 7, 2017.

According to court documents, he is said to have dishonestly misappropriated the phone of another man on April 6, 2023, and accessed the victim’s Facebook account without consent on May 3. 

Ng, who suffered frostbite after scraping off the ice in a freezer with his hands, has indicated that he intends to plead guilty to the charges. The case is expected to be heard again on Feb 7, 2024.

If convicted of dishonest misappropriation of property belonging to a dead person, Ng may be jailed for up to three years and fined. 

-----------------


Channel News Asia 

07 Feb 2024 05:28PM

SINGAPORE: After discovering a 22-year-old man lying motionless at the foot of a Housing Board block in a suicide case, a man stole the dead person's haversack.

He retrieved several electronic devices from the bag and read through the man's notebooks, including a suicide note. 

Because he discarded the handwritten note and reset the dead man's handphones to their factory settings, the police lost evidence in their investigations into the man's death.

Ng Hoe Ghee, 52, was sentenced to four months and four weeks' jail on Wednesday (Feb 7) for his crimes.

He pleaded guilty to one charge each of dishonest misappropriation of property and dishonest misappropriation of a deceased person's property, with other charges taken into consideration.

The court heard that Ng was near Block 105 Henderson Crescent at about 1.20pm on Aug 12 last year when he saw Mr Sean Kee Yi He lying at the foot of a block.

The man had multiple injuries on his face and body. 

Ng picked up some cardboard nearby and used it to cover the body. He then took the dead man's wallet, which had fallen nearby.

Soon after, police officers arrived at the block in response to a call about the death.

Ng told the police what he had observed and handed the wallet to them. Paramedics arrived and pronounced the man dead.

Investigations revealed that the man had jumped from a high level at the block after visiting a family member. He was seen carrying a black haversack with his personal belongings.

Ng, who was allowed by the police to leave the scene, went to the 15th floor of the block and walked up the stairs as he was curious to find out which floor the man had jumped from.

On a higher floor, Ng saw the dead man's black haversack. He took it, hid it in a box and stacked it with another box before hiding the pile outside his father's flat.

The next day, Ng retrieved the haversack and went through its contents, finding a laptop, two handphones, notebooks and other items.

He browsed through the books and found a note written by the deceased, which stated that he was "feeling pain and was struggling with his belief and faith".

The dead man also wrote that he "felt that he was haunted by something or someone".

Ng threw away the note and other items in the bag, keeping only the electronics. As he could not access the password-protected phones, he paid someone S$70 to unlock them.

The person, who is not identified in court documents, carried out a factory reset of both phones and unlocked them.

Ng discarded the SIM cards found in both phones and began using one of them. The laptop was also password-protected.

Ng kept the haversack with the stolen items on him wherever he went.

Meanwhile, the police had made multiple searches at the block but could not find the dead man's bag. They tried to locate Ng to help them but could not, so a police gazette was issued against him to find him.

Police officers on foot patrol in Jurong East on Sep 7 approached Ng for a routine check and realised a police gazette had been issued against him.

The officers noticed the phone Ng was using, but Ng said he had borrowed it from a storekeeper.

He was referred to the investigating officer on the dead man's case and the stolen items were recovered.

Because the phones had been reset and the suicide note had been discarded, the police were unable to obtain information from these items to assist in their investigations into the circumstances surrounding the death.

Ng also admitted to a separate occasion of taking a stranger's phone that had dropped on the floor.

The prosecution sought jail for Ng ranging from four months and two weeks to six months and four weeks.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Colin Ng said there was a dearth of reported decisions involving dishonest misappropriation of a dead person's property.

There were only three such cases before the courts between 2001 and November 2023, he said. The sentencing statistics show that jail terms were meted out, with a mean jail term of 15.7 weeks and a median jail term of 17.1 weeks.

In his mitigation, Ng apologised for what he did and cited financial strain. He said he saw that the dead man was struggling and told himself that "this kind of thing" should not be released or known.

For dishonest misappropriation from a dead person, he could have been jailed for up to three years and fined. 

Friday, January 20, 2023

-2021

CI-003044-2021 Finnegan Tan Yao Jie

Date
01 Feb 2023, Wednesday
11:00 AM
Venue
State Courts, State Court Towers, Court Coroners Court

Hearing details

Nature of case
Criminal
Hearing type
Criminal - T-CI

Parties involved

Finnegan Tan Yao Jie


 

  • Singapore Marathon (2019) / 
  • Marathon / 
  • Results / 
  • (#3316) Yao Jie Finnegan Tan 



  • YAO JIE FINNEGAN TAN (#3316)
    FINISHED
    GUN TIME:  05:02:13
    PLACE
    1708
    MALE
    1469
    20-29
    194
    NET TIME:   04:56:51
    PLACE
    2017
    MALE
    1709
    20-29
    227

    Run04:56:5042.2km

    LocationSplitRace TimePosMale20-29Speed/Pace
    5km00:30:4500:30:45165714462019.75 / 06:09
    10km00:31:0201:01:47155613721759.66 / 06:12
    15km00:32:1701:34:04160214171849.29 / 06:27
    20km00:34:4202:08:46177015612068.64 / 06:56
    21.1km00:07:5802:16:45177115632058.28 / 07:14
    25km00:28:4002:45:25175515472038.16 / 07:21
    30km00:37:5903:23:24180915752077.89 / 07:35
    35km00:36:5404:00:18171414781958.12 / 07:22
    40km00:40:1604:40:34170414671897.45 / 08:03
    42.2km00:16:1504:56:50170814691948.11 / 07:23

    Custom Results

    ResultTimePosDivGen
    42.2km Singaporean Men05:02:1359998599
  • Wednesday, September 21, 2022

    About Depression and Suicide

    Something to digest whenever I am back to my cocoon. I start to realize that there might be no one-size-fits-all explanation and solution. Each suicide, despite sharing the same end, could have different paths. 


    It is here that we encounter the central theme of existentialism: to live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffering. If there is a purpose in life at all, there must be a purpose in suffering and in dying. But no man can tell another what this purpose is. Each man must find out for himself, and must accept the responsibility that his answer prescribes. If he succeeds he will continue to grow in spite of all indignities.

    Gordon Willard Allport


    The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling "Don’t!" and "Hang on!", can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling. 

    David Foster Wallace


    As for grief, you'll find it comes in waves. When the ship is first wrecked, you're drowning, with wreckage all around you. Everything floating around you reminds you of the beauty and the magnificence of the ship that was, and is no more. And all you can do is float. You find some piece of the wreckage and you hang on for a while. Maybe it's some physical thing. Maybe it's a happy memory or a photograph. Maybe it's a person who is also floating. For a while, all you can do is float. Stay alive.

    In the beginning, the waves are 100 feet tall and crash over you without mercy. They come 10 seconds apart and don't even give you time to catch your breath. All you can do is hang on and float. After a while, maybe weeks, maybe months, you'll find the waves are still 100 feet tall, but they come further apart. When they come, they still crash all over you and wipe you out. But in between, you can breathe, you can function. You never know what's going to trigger the grief. It might be a song, a picture, a street intersection, the smell of a cup of coffee. It can be just about anything...and the wave comes crashing. But in between waves, there is life.

    Somewhere down the line, and it's different for everybody, you find that the waves are only 80 feet tall. Or 50 feet tall. And while they still come, they come further apart. You can see them coming. An anniversary, a birthday, or Christmas, or landing at O'Hare. You can see it coming, for the most part, and prepare yourself. And when it washes over you, you know that somehow you will, again, come out the other side. Soaking wet, sputtering, still hanging on to some tiny piece of the wreckage, but you'll come out.

    Take it from an old guy. The waves never stop coming, and somehow you don't really want them to. But you learn that you'll survive them. And other waves will come. And you'll survive them too. If you're lucky, you'll have lots of scars from lots of loves. And lots of shipwrecks.

    Unknown


    你打從一開始就只是想要拯救我而已,就像當初李子維拯救你一樣。你做了這麼多只是要證明,你可以跟他一樣去改變另一個人。但我想要的不是被拯救,我想要的是結束這一切。

    陳韻如


    這一次我不會阻止你,也不會有想要拯救你的念頭。這次我唯一會做的是相信你,相信也許你在經歷過這一切的悲傷之後,你會發現,你會那麼想要消失在這個世界上,不是因為你對這個世界太過失望,是因為你對這個世界有太多的期待。

    黃雨萱

    Tuesday, September 20, 2022

    Hi S

    Hi S, 


    Many things happened yesterday after your final note and your final shot into your head. 


    First, I’ve got to know who you are, and saw dozens of tributes to you on Instagram stories. 


    On Monday morning, N texted me that his friend committed suicide. A few hours later, IG stories and news coverage were connected. My heart sank after reading everything I was able to find on your and your friends’ accounts, although I don’t know you personally. For the past 1 day, most of my attention has been on you, from reading all news and comments to saving every bit of info. I just could not concentrate on and be interested in anything else. 


    I always have a weakness for the death of someone who shares some of my attributes (age, gender, background, orientation etc.), but is more superior than I in looks, intellect, achievements, and relationship with others. It feels like a better version of me in another parallel universe has died. You look good and groom well, you have the bubbly personality I could never have, you are brave to openly befriend whomever you like (while I could only lead a double/triple life). 


    And most importantly, you are now remembered by so many people. I do admire the time, place, and method you picked for your own final chapter (might be just coincidentally and unconsciously your tipping point at the just timing regardless, but the result matters), although I would rather hide myself and die quietly without troubling and traumatizing others. Nonetheless, I could sense how envious I am of you.


    Second, my perfect suicide plan reignited - to a certain extent. 


    Part of me really wants to be like you: look perfect, end myself gracefully, and receive remembrance by friends. I try to grow myself as normal and as perfect as possible, perhaps slightly deeper than superficial perfection to mask how broken and aimless I am underneath better. Subconsciously, I attempt to minimize my responsibilities and my intimate ties with others, so that I shall only take care of my parents. Once I approach my perfection and my parents pass on, I will shut myself down in a graceful way I could think of. It should be somewhere with a spectacular view that I can hang myself quietly and successfully without troubling too many people, but still able to be found right after my last breathe when my scheduled suicide note is being seen. 


    The other part of me is where I am torn. On that smaller portion, I have a thought that I will eventually outshine you by outliving you. I know that attention will eventually die down. Despite your nearest ones (eg. family, bf, bff) will suffer more before they could move on, your friends will feel loss and pity momentarily, while the majority will eventually forget. 


    I want a perfect departure remembered by people. But what about short-lived attention? I am a bit torn. 


    Third, I looked into why one (I, in particular) contemplates suicide. 


    After reading C’s messages, A’s IG stories, and your note, I have dropped my conclusion to A at the end of thinking process in the midnight: 


    I believe the root of all suicidal thoughts is to stop the agony of disappointment (losing reasons/anchors/recognitions) in life. If you don’t see the life after completing all foreseeable obligations/checklist items as unbearable, you won’t even have the thought of “the day”. Enlightenment makes us no longer obsessed with life and death issues, not driving us towards death. Nevertheless, mental overhaul does keep us on Earth longer. It stretches our obligations and purposes, so that our time to face the torturous days without life purposes can be further delayed. 


    This morning, G pointed out the possibility that your breakdown may be largely attributed to your struggle over your own orientation. It makes me wonder whether the agony I am facing right now also arises from the same issue. 


    Will I be happier, having less warped jealousy over the dead, and having less suicidal tendency if I were a straight? 


    Finally, I have to get over the current trough of what your case has stirred in my brain. 


    Like some other previous cases, I had thought a lot about how you grew up, about how you felt at your final moments, about how I could be there to save you if the clock was turned back, and about what if I end up in a similar situation as yours. What I could get are just futile guesses and wild imaginations that won’t matter anymore, but I just can’t stop myself from plunging into the abyss. There was even a slight moment in the swimming pool last night that I wished to put my life to the end, although it never materialized. I need ways to tame my emotion down and/or get my frustration off my chest. 


    Seek help? I believe I have freaked people out. On Day 1 (yesterday), I spammed a lot of people on WhatsApp and other apps. My initial disguise of my help as a normal discussion simply collapsed as I was getting uncontrollably obsessed, judging from how I talked and what I posted on WhatsApp. Starting Day 2 (today), I have decided not to trouble anyone unless/even when I have fully sorted out my mind. 


    Instead, I wrote. It is not easy to write all these down systematically at the expense of my work time, but I treat this as the only venting avenue. I wish that someone could find this message out and respond to it. But at the same time, this message shall not be related to your case and further upset your loved ones in any way. 


    Next, I shall get a closure by archiving all the updates. Hope that it makes me numb, then I could truly move on.




    Hi S, 


    Hope you live forever as the changes you have made to your loved ones, and I do hope that the awareness you raised could last forever and save more lives not by just forcefully making them stay, but by getting them come to terms with their sadness and survive bravely. 


    As for me, I just hope that I could eventually make the right decision, no matter what it could be.