2025年9月5日，臺北地方法院裁定臺灣民眾黨前主席柯文哲以7000萬元新臺幣交保獲釋，結束自2024年9月9日以來長達一年的羈押。這起案件自一開始便備受社會關注，不僅因為涉案金額龐大與指控內容嚴重，更因柯文哲的政治地位與影響力，使得案件逐漸演變為一場社會與政治輿論的焦點戰場。

案件的起因是柯文哲被控涉入京華城相關的貪污、圖利與洗錢案。臺北地檢署於2024年12月27日正式起訴柯文哲與其他十名相關人士。案件在審理過程中，保釋金一度由法院裁定為3000萬元新臺幣，但因檢方抗告，法院於12月29日改裁7000萬元。然而檢方再度提出抗告，最終在2025年1月2日，法院裁定對柯文哲羈押禁見，使他在看守所中度過整整一年。

在這段羈押期間，柯文哲一再向法院與媒體揭露其拘禁生活的艱困處境。他在延押庭上表示，自己被24小時限制在一間不到10平方米的小房間內，必須睡在馬桶旁邊，整整一年無法與人交談，這樣的待遇讓他感受到身心的雙重折磨。他的妻子陳佩琪出席庭審旁聽時，因聽到這些描述而當場落淚，引發外界強烈同情。

最終，法院在2025年9月5日裁定柯文哲以7000萬元交保，同時附加多重限制條件，包括限制居住、出境、出海，以及加裝電子監控。同案的臺北市議員應曉薇則以3000萬元交保。雖然柯文哲暫時獲得自由，但案件的法律程式仍在進行，檢方也表明可能提出進一步抗告。

這起案件在社會上的反響極為強烈。柯文哲在獲釋後直言，自己在羈押期間看清“臺灣司法的黑暗”，並指責檢方與媒體勾結，刻意塑造其負面形象，成為“政治打手”。他的話語引發廣泛討論，不少政治人物與社會名流，包括前臺北市長郝龍斌，都公開聲援柯文哲，呼籲司法必須回歸公正，不應淪為政治鬥爭的工具。

與此同時，臺灣民調顯示，多數民眾認為案件存在政治干預的可能，質疑司法獨立性受損。而在另一面，檢方則堅持反對交保，強調柯文哲若獲得自由，可能串供或影響證據，甚至對案件調查造成干擾。這種檢辯雙方的拉鋸戰，也使得社會輿論陷入更加尖銳的對立。

市場與社會層面的反應也十分明顯。柯文哲作為前臺北市長與臺灣民眾黨的關鍵人物，他的政治聲望與形象與此案緊密相關。案件發展不僅影響臺灣民眾党的未來走向，也牽動臺灣政壇格局。一方面，支持者認為他是政治迫害下的受害者，出獄後或能以“受難者”的姿態凝聚更多同情與支持；另一方面，反對者則認為其涉案內容嚴重，必須面對司法審判，不應借“政治迫害”之名來轉移焦點。

隨著柯文哲的交保獲釋，臺灣民眾黨立即發表聲明，表示將全力支持其“爭取司法正義”，並呼籲社會關注案件的公平審理。未來檢方是否會再度提出抗告，以及法院最終如何裁定，不僅關係到柯文哲的個人命運，更是臺灣社會檢驗司法獨立與公正的重要風向標。

On September 5, 2025, the Taipei District Court ruled that former Taiwan People’s Party chairman Ko Wen-je be released on bail of NT$70 million, ending a year-long detention that began on September 9, 2024. This case has drawn intense public attention from the outset—not only because of the significant sums of money involved and the serious charges of corruption, profiteering, and money laundering, but also because of Ko’s political status and influence, which quickly turned the trial into a battleground of public and political opinion.

The case stemmed from allegations that Ko was involved in corruption related to the Jinghua City development project. On December 27, 2024, the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office formally indicted Ko and ten others. Initially, the court set bail at NT$30 million, but following an appeal by prosecutors, the amount was raised to NT$70 million on December 29. Prosecutors again appealed, and on January 2, 2025, the court ordered Ko’s continued detention without visitation rights, where he would remain for the following year.

During his detention, Ko repeatedly described to the court and the media the harsh conditions he endured. He claimed that he had been confined 24 hours a day in a room of less than 10 square meters, forced to sleep next to a toilet, and deprived of normal human interaction for an entire year. His wife, Chen Pei-chi, broke down in tears while attending a hearing as Ko recounted his experiences, which sparked widespread public sympathy.

Finally, on September 5, 2025, the court ruled that Ko could be released on bail of NT$70 million, with strict conditions including restrictions on residence, travel abroad, and sea travel, along with electronic monitoring. In the same case, Taipei City Councilor Ying Hsiao-wei was released on bail of NT$30 million. Although Ko regained his freedom, the trial is ongoing, and prosecutors have indicated they may appeal again.

The ruling generated strong reactions in Taiwanese society. Upon his release, Ko declared that his detention had revealed to him the “darkness of Taiwan’s judiciary,” accusing prosecutors of colluding with the media to smear his image and act as “political enforcers.” His remarks ignited heated debate, with several political figures and public voices—including former Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin—publicly expressing support for Ko and calling for the judiciary to remain impartial and independent from political manipulation.

Public opinion polls reflect these concerns, showing that many citizens suspect political interference in the case and question the judiciary’s independence. On the other hand, prosecutors firmly opposed Ko’s bail, warning that his release could lead to collusion with co-defendants, tampering with evidence, or interference with the investigation. This standoff between the defense and the prosecution has deepened social divisions and sharpened public debate.

The case has also had visible political and societal repercussions. As a former mayor of Taipei and a central figure in the Taiwan People’s Party, Ko’s political reputation is closely tied to the trial’s outcome. The case not only influences the party’s future direction but also carries implications for Taiwan’s broader political landscape. Supporters see Ko as a victim of political persecution whose ordeal could rally public sympathy and strengthen his political base, while critics argue that the charges are grave and must be addressed through the legal process, rather than dismissed as political targeting.

Following Ko’s release, the Taiwan People’s Party issued a statement pledging full support for his efforts to “pursue judicial justice” and urging society to monitor the fairness of the proceedings. Whether prosecutors will file another appeal, and how the courts will ultimately rule, will not only shape Ko Wen-je’s personal fate but also serve as a crucial test of judicial independence and fairness in Taiwan.