DCCC335/2023 HKSAR v. KO ALEXANDER MING-CHE - LawHero
DCCC335/2023
HKSAR v. KO ALEXANDER MING-CHE
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge KH Cheang29/10/2023[2023] HKDC 1541
DCCC335/2023
A A
B B
DCCC 335/2023
C [2023] HKDC 1541 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 335 OF 2023
F F
-----------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
KO Alexander Ming-che
I ----------------------------- I
Before: Deputy District Judge KH Cheang in court
J J
Date: 30 October 2023
K Present: Mr Brian Cheng, Public Prosecutor, of the Department of K
Justice, for HKSAR
L L
Mr Alan So, instructed by Messrs. A Lee & Partners, for the
M defendant M
Offence: Wounding (傷人)
N N
-----------------------------------------
O O
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
P
----------------------------------------- P
Q Q
Introduction
R R
1. The defendant was convicted upon his own guilty plea of one
S S
charge of wounding, contrary to section 19 of the Offences against the
T Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Facts
C C
2. The Korean victim Mr Cho (“PW1”) and the defendant were
D D
unacquainted before this incident. On the other hand, PW1 was a friend of
E Mr Tse (“PW2”). E
F F
3. At about 9:30 am on 25 June 2022, PW1 and PW2 joined a
G boat party on a yacht (the “Yacht”) in Sai Kung. The defendant was also at G
that boat party. The Yacht sailed to Kau Sai Chau and the participants of
H H
the boat party consumed alcohols.
I I
4. At about 2 pm on the same day, PW1 had a casual chat with
J J
the defendant on the Yacht.
K K
5. At about 4 pm, PW1 fell asleep on a couch on the Yacht.
L L
6. At about 6 pm, the Yacht berthed at Sai Kung New Public Pier.
M M
The defendant woke PW1 by grabbing his face and touching his body. The
N defendant asked PW1 to drink and said Koreans could drink. PW1 ignored N
the defendant and tried to get back to sleep. However, the defendant kept
O O
disturbing PW1 and got close to him. PW1 tried to push the defendant away
P to keep a distance from the defendant. The defendant then slapped PW1’s P
face. PW1 tried to stop the defendant but the defendant tackled PW1 thus
Q Q
making PW1 fall onto the floor. PW1 then restrained the defendant’s upper
R body with his right hand. At that point, PW2 and other people separated R
them.
S S
T
7. About 2 to 3 minutes later, the defendant who was then at the T
other end of the Yacht took an unopened wine bottle (the “Bottle”) and
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
approached PW1 from behind. The defendant smashed PW1’s head with
C the Bottle. As a result, the Bottle shattered and PW1’s head bled. C
D 8. The defendant alighted from the Yacht after the attack. D
E E
9. PW1 went home afterwards. On 26 June 2022, PW1 still felt
F pain on the head. He therefore went to the hospital for treatment and F
reported the case to the police there.
G G
H
10. Medical examination showed that PW1 suffered a 3 cm H
wound at the scalp with surrounding erythema and tenderness, and minor
I I
abrasions at the right foot and lower leg. He was discharged on the same
J
day after treatment. J
K K
The defendant’s background and previous criminal record
L 11. The defendant was born in October 1988 and is now 35. He is L
married with a 5-year-old daughter. He has been working as a beverage
M M
development manager since October 2018 earning about $40,000 a month.
N N
O
12. Prior to commission of the present offence, the defendant had
O
one previous conviction of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm
P P
under section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212.
Q
As a result of that conviction, a 120-hour community service order was Q
imposed on him in February 2017.
R R
S Mitigation S
T 13. The gist of Mr So’s written “Submission of mitigations on T
behalf of the defendant” is as follows:
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(i) The defendant pleaded guilty and therefore was entitled to 1/3
C discount in sentence; C
(ii) The defendant was willing to pay compensation to PW1;
D D
(iii) The defendant committed the present offence under the
E influence of alcohol. He has since received counselling from E
St John’s Cathedral Counselling Service since July 2022; and
F F
(iv) The defendant made a donation with another person in the
G total sum of HK$10,000 to a charitable organization called G
Sons & Daughters in April 2023, and acted as a voluntary
H H
bartender at Mother’s Choice Gala Dinner 2023.
I I
Three mitigation letters respectively from the defendant himself, his wife
J J
and his employer were submitted to the court asking for leniency. The
K defendant’s curriculum vitae were also submitted. It was stated in the K
defendant’s and his wife’s letters that the defendant was a man of short
L L
temper.
M M
Sentence
N N
O 14. The maximum sentence for the offence of wounding is 3 years’ O
imprisonment. There are no tariffs or sentencing guidelines for the offence
P P
of wounding. The facts of wounding cases are different from each other.
Q Whether a particular sentence is appropriate depends on all the Q
circumstances of that particular case.
R R
S 15. In HKSAR v Lai Hing Wan (黎慶雲) CACC 363/2007, the S
applicant attacked the victim’s head a number of times with a glass bottle
T T
at a basketball court. He did not stop the attack despite the glass bottle had
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
been broken. Three other young persons also punched and kicked the
C victim. The victim suffered scalp and ear abrasions and tenderness on his C
upper back, but had no bone fracture. He was discharged after treatment. It
D D
was believed that the victim was attacked because he had kept contacting
E his ex-girlfriend, causing her new boyfriend jealous. In light of the E
applicant’s previous convictions involving use of violence, triad related
F F
offence, robbery and theft, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the
G starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive. The G
Court of Appeal said that they did not accept the attack was not
H H
premeditated, that it was sheer luck that the victim’s injuries were not
I serious, and that the applicant’s violent conduct could have led to I
extremely serious consequences.
J J
K 16. In HKSAR v Chan Ka Wah ( 陳嘉華 ) CACC 74/2011, the K
applicant was convicted after trial of one charge of burglary (Charge 1) and
L L
one charge of wounding (Charge 2). He was sentenced to 42 months’
M imprisonment for Charge 1 and 27 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2. M
The trial judge ordered 12 months from Charge 2 to run consecutively with
N N
42 months in Charge 1, making a total of 54 months’ imprisonment. Charge
O O
2 took place during the course of Charge 1. The facts of that case were that
P
at around 2 am on the offence date, the victim returned home and chanced P
upon the applicant coming out of the victim’s bedroom. The defendant was
Q Q
holding a pair of scissors and pointing it at the victim in a threatening
R
manner. The victim managed to kick away the scissors and pushed the R
defendant against the wall after the two struggled for about 5 to 6 minutes.
S S
While the applicant was pressed against the wall, he grabbed a glass bottle
T of ketchup placed nearby and hit the victim over the head with it more than T
10 times. The glass bottle broke in the process and the victim bled
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
profusely as a result. The victim sustained (i) 3 laceration wounds on his
C face which required suturing by 5 stitches, 4 stitches and 2 stitches, (ii) 2 C
laceration wounds on his scalp which required suturing by 3 stitches and 1
D D
stitch; (iii) a 1 cm laceration would on his right middle finger; and (iv)
E multiple abrasions on both his hands and forearms. On the applicant’s E
application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time, the Court of
F F
Appeal was of the view that a sentence of 27 months for Charge 2 neither
G wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. G
H 17. In HKSAR v Thapa Binaya HCMA 77/2018, the appellant was H
convicted after trial on a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary
I I
to section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance and was
J
sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment with 12 months’ imprisonment as J
K
the starting point. The case happened during a boat party. When group K
photos were to be taken at the boat, the victim found her bikini loosen from
L L
her back. When she turned around, she saw the appellant standing behind
M her making a funny face. The victim was angry and confronted the M
appellant. She wanted to hit him but was separated by her friend. Later on,
N N
the appellant went to the toilet. The victim was still upset and angry. She
O pulled the toilet door and found it unlocked. She confronted the appellant O
and wanted to kick him but was pulled away by her friends. The appellant
P P
then rushed from the toilet for some distance and punched the victim once
Q on her face between the forehead and nose. As a result, the victim sustained Q
swelling on forehead and fracture of nasal bone. She received surgery for
R R
the fracture. The appellant’s appeal against sentence was dismissed by
S Deputy High Court Judge V Bokhary (as she then was). S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
18. I am of the view that the facts of the present case were not as
C serious as those in Lai Hing Wan or Chan Ka Wah, but were more serious C
than those in Thapa Binaya.
D D
19. In the present case, the defendant used an unopened wine
E E
bottle to attack PW1. I was informed by the prosecution that the defendant
F hit PW1 with the Bottle once only. That said, on the presumption that the F
Bottle contained full amount of wine inside, the force applied to PW1 when
G G
the defendant smashed PW1’s head with the Bottle must be a lot more
H significant then smashing PW1’s head with a glass bottle with no or less H
wine inside. Also, on the basis that the defendant smashed PW1’s head
I I
only once with the Bottle, the force must have been very heavy so much so
J J
that the Bottle broke by only one smash. Further, the defendant was at the
K
other end of the Yacht before the attack. He took the Bottle, walked the K
whole length of the Yacht from one end to the other, approached PW1 from
L L
behind and attacked PW1. The defendant’s conduct was spiteful and
M malicious. This incident was also un-provoked by PW1 who just wanted M
the defendant to leave him alone. I did not lose sight to the fact that PW1
N N
did not seek medical treatment on the offence date, and that he was not
O hospitalized after medical treatment the next day. Nonetheless, PW1 bled O
from his head when he was smashed. He suffered a 3 cm wound at the scalp.
P P
The injuries PW1 sustained was not insignificant. Indeed, given the fact
Q that the defendant smashed PW1’s head with the Bottle with wine inside, Q
it was sheer luck that PW1’s injuries were not too serious.
R R
S 20. In HKSAR v Clifford Martin Frank HCMA 1113/2001, S
Madam Justice Beeson (as she then was) quoted a passage by Lord Chief
T T
Justice in R v Goodwin and others [1999] 2 Cr App R 128 CA which read:
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
“For an offender who had committed such an offence, there was a
C C
legitimate public expectation that he would be severely punished to
bring home to him the gravity of the offence and to warn others of the
D D
risk of behaving in the same way. If such punishment did not follow,
E public confidence in the administration of the criminal law was E
weakened and there would be a temptation on the part of some to exact
F their own retribution. And, as to the victim, punishment could not heal F
wounds but inadequate punishment could add insult to the injury.”
G G
H Lord Chief Justice was dealing with the equivalent of the offence of H
wounding with intent (section 17 offence) in Goodwin; but Madam Justice
I I
Beeson (as she then was) said those observations were pertinent equally to
J offences under section 19 and section 17. J
K K
21. The defendant had a previous conviction of the same offence
L and a 120-hour community service order was imposed on him in February L
2017. I do not think imposing a community service order appropriate for
M M
the present case.
N N
22. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, I adopt
O O
a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment. One-third discount is given
P to the defendant for his guilty plea, thereby reducing his sentence to 10 P
months’ imprisonment.
Q Q
R 23. The defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time R
of the offence is not a valid mitigating factor: paragraph 27 of HKSAR v
S S
Ng Ming Hong (吳明杭) HCMA 381/2022. To put it in another way, the
T starting point for this case would have been a lot higher than 15 months if T
the defendant was not under the influence of alcohol.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
24. The defendant was willing to make compensation to PW1.
C C
This morning, I was informed that PW1 asked for compensation of HK1.5
D million. It was a significant amount of money and understandably the D
defendant was unable to pay that amount without the chance to look
E E
carefully how that HK1.5 million was made up with.
F F
25. Regarding the defendant’s joint donation with a Mr Lai of
G G
HK$10,000 in April 2023 and his participation as a voluntary bartender at
H Mother’s Choice Gala Dinner 2023, I do not think they could make the H
defendant a person of “positive good character” in the court’s eyes.
I I
Nonetheless, I am willing to make a downward adjustment of his sentence
J to 9 months and 3 weeks’ imprisonment because of the defendant’s J
aforesaid donation and volunteer work.
K K
L 26. There being no further mitigating factors justifying further L
reduction in sentence, the defendant is sentenced to 9 months and 3 weeks’
M M
imprisonment.
N N
O O
(KH Cheang)
Deputy District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 335/2023
C [2023] HKDC 1541 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 335 OF 2023
F F
-----------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
KO Alexander Ming-che
I ----------------------------- I
Before: Deputy District Judge KH Cheang in court
J J
Date: 30 October 2023
K Present: Mr Brian Cheng, Public Prosecutor, of the Department of K
Justice, for HKSAR
L L
Mr Alan So, instructed by Messrs. A Lee & Partners, for the
M defendant M
Offence: Wounding (傷人)
N N
-----------------------------------------
O O
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
P
----------------------------------------- P
Q Q
Introduction
R R
1. The defendant was convicted upon his own guilty plea of one
S S
charge of wounding, contrary to section 19 of the Offences against the
T Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
Facts
C C
2. The Korean victim Mr Cho (“PW1”) and the defendant were
D D
unacquainted before this incident. On the other hand, PW1 was a friend of
E Mr Tse (“PW2”). E
F F
3. At about 9:30 am on 25 June 2022, PW1 and PW2 joined a
G boat party on a yacht (the “Yacht”) in Sai Kung. The defendant was also at G
that boat party. The Yacht sailed to Kau Sai Chau and the participants of
H H
the boat party consumed alcohols.
I I
4. At about 2 pm on the same day, PW1 had a casual chat with
J J
the defendant on the Yacht.
K K
5. At about 4 pm, PW1 fell asleep on a couch on the Yacht.
L L
6. At about 6 pm, the Yacht berthed at Sai Kung New Public Pier.
M M
The defendant woke PW1 by grabbing his face and touching his body. The
N defendant asked PW1 to drink and said Koreans could drink. PW1 ignored N
the defendant and tried to get back to sleep. However, the defendant kept
O O
disturbing PW1 and got close to him. PW1 tried to push the defendant away
P to keep a distance from the defendant. The defendant then slapped PW1’s P
face. PW1 tried to stop the defendant but the defendant tackled PW1 thus
Q Q
making PW1 fall onto the floor. PW1 then restrained the defendant’s upper
R body with his right hand. At that point, PW2 and other people separated R
them.
S S
T
7. About 2 to 3 minutes later, the defendant who was then at the T
other end of the Yacht took an unopened wine bottle (the “Bottle”) and
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
approached PW1 from behind. The defendant smashed PW1’s head with
C the Bottle. As a result, the Bottle shattered and PW1’s head bled. C
D 8. The defendant alighted from the Yacht after the attack. D
E E
9. PW1 went home afterwards. On 26 June 2022, PW1 still felt
F pain on the head. He therefore went to the hospital for treatment and F
reported the case to the police there.
G G
H
10. Medical examination showed that PW1 suffered a 3 cm H
wound at the scalp with surrounding erythema and tenderness, and minor
I I
abrasions at the right foot and lower leg. He was discharged on the same
J
day after treatment. J
K K
The defendant’s background and previous criminal record
L 11. The defendant was born in October 1988 and is now 35. He is L
married with a 5-year-old daughter. He has been working as a beverage
M M
development manager since October 2018 earning about $40,000 a month.
N N
O
12. Prior to commission of the present offence, the defendant had
O
one previous conviction of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm
P P
under section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212.
Q
As a result of that conviction, a 120-hour community service order was Q
imposed on him in February 2017.
R R
S Mitigation S
T 13. The gist of Mr So’s written “Submission of mitigations on T
behalf of the defendant” is as follows:
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(i) The defendant pleaded guilty and therefore was entitled to 1/3
C discount in sentence; C
(ii) The defendant was willing to pay compensation to PW1;
D D
(iii) The defendant committed the present offence under the
E influence of alcohol. He has since received counselling from E
St John’s Cathedral Counselling Service since July 2022; and
F F
(iv) The defendant made a donation with another person in the
G total sum of HK$10,000 to a charitable organization called G
Sons & Daughters in April 2023, and acted as a voluntary
H H
bartender at Mother’s Choice Gala Dinner 2023.
I I
Three mitigation letters respectively from the defendant himself, his wife
J J
and his employer were submitted to the court asking for leniency. The
K defendant’s curriculum vitae were also submitted. It was stated in the K
defendant’s and his wife’s letters that the defendant was a man of short
L L
temper.
M M
Sentence
N N
O 14. The maximum sentence for the offence of wounding is 3 years’ O
imprisonment. There are no tariffs or sentencing guidelines for the offence
P P
of wounding. The facts of wounding cases are different from each other.
Q Whether a particular sentence is appropriate depends on all the Q
circumstances of that particular case.
R R
S 15. In HKSAR v Lai Hing Wan (黎慶雲) CACC 363/2007, the S
applicant attacked the victim’s head a number of times with a glass bottle
T T
at a basketball court. He did not stop the attack despite the glass bottle had
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
been broken. Three other young persons also punched and kicked the
C victim. The victim suffered scalp and ear abrasions and tenderness on his C
upper back, but had no bone fracture. He was discharged after treatment. It
D D
was believed that the victim was attacked because he had kept contacting
E his ex-girlfriend, causing her new boyfriend jealous. In light of the E
applicant’s previous convictions involving use of violence, triad related
F F
offence, robbery and theft, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the
G starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive. The G
Court of Appeal said that they did not accept the attack was not
H H
premeditated, that it was sheer luck that the victim’s injuries were not
I serious, and that the applicant’s violent conduct could have led to I
extremely serious consequences.
J J
K 16. In HKSAR v Chan Ka Wah ( 陳嘉華 ) CACC 74/2011, the K
applicant was convicted after trial of one charge of burglary (Charge 1) and
L L
one charge of wounding (Charge 2). He was sentenced to 42 months’
M imprisonment for Charge 1 and 27 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2. M
The trial judge ordered 12 months from Charge 2 to run consecutively with
N N
42 months in Charge 1, making a total of 54 months’ imprisonment. Charge
O O
2 took place during the course of Charge 1. The facts of that case were that
P
at around 2 am on the offence date, the victim returned home and chanced P
upon the applicant coming out of the victim’s bedroom. The defendant was
Q Q
holding a pair of scissors and pointing it at the victim in a threatening
R
manner. The victim managed to kick away the scissors and pushed the R
defendant against the wall after the two struggled for about 5 to 6 minutes.
S S
While the applicant was pressed against the wall, he grabbed a glass bottle
T of ketchup placed nearby and hit the victim over the head with it more than T
10 times. The glass bottle broke in the process and the victim bled
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
profusely as a result. The victim sustained (i) 3 laceration wounds on his
C face which required suturing by 5 stitches, 4 stitches and 2 stitches, (ii) 2 C
laceration wounds on his scalp which required suturing by 3 stitches and 1
D D
stitch; (iii) a 1 cm laceration would on his right middle finger; and (iv)
E multiple abrasions on both his hands and forearms. On the applicant’s E
application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time, the Court of
F F
Appeal was of the view that a sentence of 27 months for Charge 2 neither
G wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. G
H 17. In HKSAR v Thapa Binaya HCMA 77/2018, the appellant was H
convicted after trial on a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary
I I
to section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance and was
J
sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment with 12 months’ imprisonment as J
K
the starting point. The case happened during a boat party. When group K
photos were to be taken at the boat, the victim found her bikini loosen from
L L
her back. When she turned around, she saw the appellant standing behind
M her making a funny face. The victim was angry and confronted the M
appellant. She wanted to hit him but was separated by her friend. Later on,
N N
the appellant went to the toilet. The victim was still upset and angry. She
O pulled the toilet door and found it unlocked. She confronted the appellant O
and wanted to kick him but was pulled away by her friends. The appellant
P P
then rushed from the toilet for some distance and punched the victim once
Q on her face between the forehead and nose. As a result, the victim sustained Q
swelling on forehead and fracture of nasal bone. She received surgery for
R R
the fracture. The appellant’s appeal against sentence was dismissed by
S Deputy High Court Judge V Bokhary (as she then was). S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
18. I am of the view that the facts of the present case were not as
C serious as those in Lai Hing Wan or Chan Ka Wah, but were more serious C
than those in Thapa Binaya.
D D
19. In the present case, the defendant used an unopened wine
E E
bottle to attack PW1. I was informed by the prosecution that the defendant
F hit PW1 with the Bottle once only. That said, on the presumption that the F
Bottle contained full amount of wine inside, the force applied to PW1 when
G G
the defendant smashed PW1’s head with the Bottle must be a lot more
H significant then smashing PW1’s head with a glass bottle with no or less H
wine inside. Also, on the basis that the defendant smashed PW1’s head
I I
only once with the Bottle, the force must have been very heavy so much so
J J
that the Bottle broke by only one smash. Further, the defendant was at the
K
other end of the Yacht before the attack. He took the Bottle, walked the K
whole length of the Yacht from one end to the other, approached PW1 from
L L
behind and attacked PW1. The defendant’s conduct was spiteful and
M malicious. This incident was also un-provoked by PW1 who just wanted M
the defendant to leave him alone. I did not lose sight to the fact that PW1
N N
did not seek medical treatment on the offence date, and that he was not
O hospitalized after medical treatment the next day. Nonetheless, PW1 bled O
from his head when he was smashed. He suffered a 3 cm wound at the scalp.
P P
The injuries PW1 sustained was not insignificant. Indeed, given the fact
Q that the defendant smashed PW1’s head with the Bottle with wine inside, Q
it was sheer luck that PW1’s injuries were not too serious.
R R
S 20. In HKSAR v Clifford Martin Frank HCMA 1113/2001, S
Madam Justice Beeson (as she then was) quoted a passage by Lord Chief
T T
Justice in R v Goodwin and others [1999] 2 Cr App R 128 CA which read:
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
“For an offender who had committed such an offence, there was a
C C
legitimate public expectation that he would be severely punished to
bring home to him the gravity of the offence and to warn others of the
D D
risk of behaving in the same way. If such punishment did not follow,
E public confidence in the administration of the criminal law was E
weakened and there would be a temptation on the part of some to exact
F their own retribution. And, as to the victim, punishment could not heal F
wounds but inadequate punishment could add insult to the injury.”
G G
H Lord Chief Justice was dealing with the equivalent of the offence of H
wounding with intent (section 17 offence) in Goodwin; but Madam Justice
I I
Beeson (as she then was) said those observations were pertinent equally to
J offences under section 19 and section 17. J
K K
21. The defendant had a previous conviction of the same offence
L and a 120-hour community service order was imposed on him in February L
2017. I do not think imposing a community service order appropriate for
M M
the present case.
N N
22. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, I adopt
O O
a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment. One-third discount is given
P to the defendant for his guilty plea, thereby reducing his sentence to 10 P
months’ imprisonment.
Q Q
R 23. The defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time R
of the offence is not a valid mitigating factor: paragraph 27 of HKSAR v
S S
Ng Ming Hong (吳明杭) HCMA 381/2022. To put it in another way, the
T starting point for this case would have been a lot higher than 15 months if T
the defendant was not under the influence of alcohol.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
24. The defendant was willing to make compensation to PW1.
C C
This morning, I was informed that PW1 asked for compensation of HK1.5
D million. It was a significant amount of money and understandably the D
defendant was unable to pay that amount without the chance to look
E E
carefully how that HK1.5 million was made up with.
F F
25. Regarding the defendant’s joint donation with a Mr Lai of
G G
HK$10,000 in April 2023 and his participation as a voluntary bartender at
H Mother’s Choice Gala Dinner 2023, I do not think they could make the H
defendant a person of “positive good character” in the court’s eyes.
I I
Nonetheless, I am willing to make a downward adjustment of his sentence
J to 9 months and 3 weeks’ imprisonment because of the defendant’s J
aforesaid donation and volunteer work.
K K
L 26. There being no further mitigating factors justifying further L
reduction in sentence, the defendant is sentenced to 9 months and 3 weeks’
M M
imprisonment.
N N
O O
(KH Cheang)
Deputy District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V