Following the enactment of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, judges cannot ignore the reality of domestic violence. Problems remain such as: has the legislation produce attitude change in relation to sentencing decisions? What role do traditional thoughts play in affecting decisions? By interviewing 20 judges on their sentencing decisions on 8 vignette cases, this study intends to analyze the extra-legal factors affecting sentencing decisions for domestic violent offenders. Judges were asked to suggest an appropriate sentence and give their reasons for the specific cases. The eight vignettes described typical incidents of domestic and stranger violence (including seven incidents of domestic violence and an incident of violence happening via strangers). Comparing the sentencing decisions of each pair case (#1 and #2, #4 and #5 etc.) allows us to examine how judges decision-making is related to factors such as the employment status of the husband, "bad wife or mother", repeated offender, presence of children, public/private area, and under the influence of alcohol. The results indicated that, in spite of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, judges tended to reduce the culpability of the domestic violence offender when the variable "the husband has been out of work for a long time" factor was present and ascribe blame to the victim in the presence of the variable "failure of the wife to fulfill stereotypical female roles". Furthermore, judges often disregarded the criminal essence of the assault when it was committed against a partner, with many of the supposedly aggravating factors leading to the incident being seen as a less serious criminal matter, and more of a domestic quarrel. In addition, in the partner assault cases, some of the judges required the victim to forgive and excuse the offender with the purpose of keeping the family harmonious and avoiding marriage breakdown.