「凡涉及原住民族與非原住民族之權利衝突事項，除法律基於正當理由，另以明文規定對於原住民族特別採取較優勢保護外，尚不能因原住民族係眾所公認之弱勢族群，即允其逸脫一般法律規範，對於他人之財產法益予以侵害。刑法第十六條前段規定，不得因不知法律而免除刑事責任，而搶奪本為文明社會一致處罰之行為，被告乙○○供稱於日治時期曾就學三年，被告甲○○供稱學歷為高中畢業（本院第二審卷第一六三頁），且被告乙○○陳稱其為鄒族頭目，並自許為『質樸木訥、認真盡責、恪遵傳統祭儀禮之男子』（本院第二審卷第五三頁），另依公知之鄒族習俗，被告甲○○將來亦有可能繼承其父之頭目職銜，顯見二人均為文明社會之成員，且為該原住民族現在與未來之精神領袖，彼等當認識『不得搶奪』乃放諸四海皆準之道德規範與法律誡命，是本案被告並不存在對於刑法禁止規範不知或認識錯誤之情狀，從而被告乙○○於警詢時辯稱「我們並沒有想要欺侮任何人，並沒有想要傷害任何人，我們只是在不懂法律的狀況下，很多的行為我們沒有辦法知道我們在做什麼」云云（本院第二審卷第八四頁），被告甲○○於警詢時辯稱『在我的觀念裏頭認為這個蜂蜜是從我的林班地裏盜採，在我的觀念裏頭就是占有我本人的權益』云云（本院第二審卷第七八頁），自難引為阻卻或減輕罪責之事由。……被告等意圖為自己不法之所有，而搶奪被害人之蜂蜜，核二人所為，均係犯刑法第三百二十五條第一項之搶奪罪。被告等就上揭犯行，有犯意聯絡及行為分擔，皆為共同正犯。原審以被告等罪證明確，依刑事訴訟法第四百四十九條第一項、第四百五十四條第二項，刑法第二十八條、第三百二十五條第一項，罰金罰鍰提高標準條例第二條（原審判決贅載同條例第一條前段），審酌被告等犯罪之動機、目的、手段，犯罪時所受之刺激及其品性、生活狀況、智識程度、犯罪所生之損害，犯罪後態度尚稱良好及被害人願宥恕犯行等一切情狀，逕以簡易判決各處被告等有期徒刑六月……因一時失慮，偶罹刑典，事後已向被害人道歉，深具悔意，經此偵審教訓，應知警惕而無再犯之虞，因認暫不執行其刑為當，依刑法第七十四條第一款分別諭知緩刑二年，用啟自新……」（嘉義地方法院93年1月12日92年度簡上字第151號判決）

Whenever involving conflict matters between indigenous and non-indigenous rights, unless based on legal justification with clear and plain stipulations on special recognition of indigenous rights, notwithstanding indigenous peoples' disadvantaged status, indigenous peoples are prohibited from violating other's property rights. Article 16 of the R.O.C. Criminal Code states ”Criminal responsibility shall not be excused simply because of ignorance of the law”. Snatch of Property has been consistently punished in the civilized society, defendant B stated that he had been studied for three years during Japanese occupation, and defendant A has a high school diploma. In addition, defendant B expressed he is the tribal leader in Tsou with a personality of rustic stiff, conscientious and abide by the traditional customary laws. Moreover, according to Tsou customary laws, defendant A is the successor to his father's position; it is obviously that two defendants are members of civilized society. As the incumbent and future Tsou tribal leader, they should have known that snatch of property is against the law with universal binding power. Thus, defendants could not argue that they were excused because of ignorance of the law. Further, defendant B argued during the investigation that ”we had no intention to harm anyone, and we had no idea about the law on what we had done.” Defendant A also argued ”within my traditional beliefs, since the honey was taken from my reserved-forest land, that was an act against my own interests.” These statements could not either excused the defendants' criminal responsibility or reduced the punishment according to circumstances.