Supreme Court upholds jail term verdict in military espionage case

Taipei, March 7 (CNA) The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the jail sentences given to two former Air Force officers for passing military intelligence for China.

The individuals, identified by their last names Yeh (葉) and Su (蘇), each previously served with the 501st and 301st battalions of the Air Defense and Missile Command.

According to the court, Yeh was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison, while Su received a five-year-and-eight-month sentence.

The two were found to have been recruited by a Taiwanese father and son surnamed Huang (黃) to collect classified military information for China in exchange for monetary compensation, the court said.

The case stemmed from 2015, when Huang went to operate a business in Xiamen, China, where he became acquainted with a Chinese intelligence officer.

He and his son later agreed to establish a spy network in Taiwan for pay by recruiting active-duty military personnel.

During their time in active service, Yeh and Su passed on several classified documents to the Huangs, who relayed the information to a Chinese intelligence officer in person or by phone.

For all those efforts, the court said the Huangs were found to have been paid NT$1.716 million (US$52,288) while Yeh received NT$210,000 and Su NT$100,000.

All four individuals have been guilty of contravening the National Security Act, the Classified National Security Information Protection Act the Anti-Corruption Act.

Despite subsequent appeals, the Supreme Court in August 2024 upheld a judgment from the Tainan branch of the High Court that the Huangs each be given a jail sentence of eight years with the deprivation of civil rights for five years, while the ruling on Yeh and Su was rejected for another review.

The two former officers were initially sentenced to seven years and six years, respectively.

Considering that Yeh and Su did not have any prior criminal record, the Tainan branch court later revised their sentences to a little more than five years.

The two defendants again appealed but this was rejected by the Supreme Court, which ruled the verdict as final on Thursday.