to be fair用法的八卦，Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

匿名法官接受訪問

//“[Tong] didn’t do much of anything—he didn’t commit murder or arson,” the judge said wryly. “He is the most benevolent terrorist in the world.”//
（佢既無殺人，亦無縱火，無做啲咩嘢，（如果係恐怖份子嘅話），佢應該係世上最善良嘅恐怖份子。）

至於刑事案件响高等法院無陪審團之下審訊，呢位法官覺得，如果政府咁安排嘅目的要保護陪審的話，「總有其他方法比徹底破壞整個制度好」。

//If the government wanted to protect jurors, the judge said, “There must be some other way apart from abolishing the whole system.”//

關於專家證人政治解釋口號嘅用處，匿名法官認為專家證嘅作用係幫助法庭理解法律以外嘅事，但解釋政治口號嘅話就未必有效用（"flawed tool"），呢啲正正就需要陪審團以普通人嘅「常識」去理解（“common-sense approach”），相反，法官通常會用法律角度去思考。

對於香港司法制度嘅未來，法官覺得可能越黎越接近新加坡，即係「商業法係可以嘅，但當牽涉刑事或人權就大有問題。」

“We might become more like Singapore. The business law is fine, but there’s a big problem in criminal law and human rights.”

最後，佢就用心臟病做比喻，

“It’s a sign of danger. If it continues to develop, it will lead to cardiac arrest. But is it fair to say a person is worthless just because of a heart condition? No, the body is still there to compensate.”

「（有心臟病）係危險嘅徵兆，如果繼續發展落去，終會心臟停頓。但，係咪可以話有心臟病就等如廢呢？未必嘅，因為身體其他部份未死，仍然可以支持住。）

報導原文：
《Vice》Inside the Surreal Trial of the ‘Most Benevolent Terrorist in the World’
https://www.vice.com/en/article/93y47p/hong-kong-national-security-trial-tong-ying-kit

#粗糙翻譯報導完畢

毋忘五大訴求　公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
（案件編號：DCCC 535/2020）

——————————————————
「毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘，即訂閱Patreon：
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————

胡法官雅文閣下：

　　2012年，我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評公安惡法不義，並因公民抗命的緣故，甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說，如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除，惡法沒有消失，我依然會一如故我，公民抗命，並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日，普選仍然遙遙無期，我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判，但只是短短７年，已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命，反對暴政。今日，我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪，我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫，但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情，讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。

暴力之濫觴

　　在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際，我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中，但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行，幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭，抗議不義惡法，今日關於10月20日的案件，亦是如此。可能有人會問，政府已在6月暫緩修例，更在9月正式撤回修例，我等仍然繼續示威，豈非無理取鬧？我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」（Justice delayed is justice denied）這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭，和平表達不滿的時候，林鄭政府沒有理睬，反而獨行獨斷，粗暴踐踏港人的意願，結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗，甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後，所謂暫緩撤回，已經微不足道，我們只是更加清楚：沒有民主，就連基本人權都不會擁有！

　　在本案之中，雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為，但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件，相信在控方及法庭眼中，案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上，如此，我有必要問：如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉，人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律，試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢？如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦，那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢？如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗，那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言？真正且經常發生的暴力，是漠視人民訴求的暴力，是踐踏人民意見的暴力，是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力，痛恨暴力的人，不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗，又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責，那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢？

社會之病根

　　對於法庭而言，可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂，務必追究違法者個人責任。然而，治亂治其本源，醫病醫其病根，我雖然公民抗命，刻意違法，控方把我帶上法庭，但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情，並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成，社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身，而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理，但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法，就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後，2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。

如果不希望社會動亂，就必須正本清源，逐步落實「五大訴求」，從根本上改革，挽回民心。2019年反修例運動，其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已，縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起，但我必須澄清，兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選，人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中，接近300萬人投票，民主派大勝，奪得17個區議會主導權，這就是整個反修例運動的民意，民意就是反對政府決策，反對制度暴力，反對推行惡法，不容爭辯，不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀，多次提醒政府撤回修法，並從根本上改革制度，而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今，法庭對我們施加重刑，其實只不過是懲罰民意，將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內，甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中，窒礙表達自由。

堅持之重要

　　大運動過後的大鎮壓，使我們失去《蘋果日報》，失去教協，失去民陣，不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中，不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調，新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮，公民社會受到沈重打擊，我亦失去不少摯友，有感傷孤獨的時候，但我仍然相信，2019年香港人的信念，以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政，抵制惡法，展現我們眾志成城；我不會忘記人潮紅海，讓道救護車，展現我們文明精神；我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政，捨身成仁，展現我們膽色勇氣；我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人，展現我們彼此關懷；我不會忘記「五大訴求」，不會忘記2019年區議會選舉，展現我們有理有節。

　　法官閣下，我對於當日的所作所為，不感羞恥，毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路，與戰友同繫一獄，實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石，將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制，隨時變成政治工具掃除異見，因此爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是我的理想。在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命，正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明（Lord Hoffmann）所言，發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統，歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望，曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念，在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中。

　　最後，如9年前一樣，我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說：「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力，來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量，來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧，我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律，因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧，我們仍然愛你們。」（We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.）

　　願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安，與我和我一家同在，與法官閣下同在，與香港人同在。沒有暴徒，只有暴政；五大訴求，缺一不可！願榮耀歸上帝，榮光歸人民！

第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日

Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)

Your Honour Judge Woodcock

In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.

The roots of violence

At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!

In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?

The roots of society's problems

From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.

The importance of persistence

As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.

Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.

Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."

Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!

The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021

這是美國著名政治家 Benjamin Franklin 的名言。

面對今時今日的社會環境，實在沒有心情寫其他文章，今天只想借這個平台，談一下「法治 」(Rule of Law) 這個題目。

不少曾經訓斥示威衝突的人，最常聽見的反應就是：「不管之前的行為怎麼樣，總之違法就不對，要遵守法治精神。」這令我想起之前有幸修讀過「公共法」的課程，那是我在眾多法律課程中最喜歡的一科（雖然不是考的最好的一科）。我想說，這根本不是 Rule of Law，而是 Rule by law (以法管治)，那是完全不同的概念。

法治的概念經歷了源遠流長的演化，比較近期的說法，可以引用英國前首席大法官 Lord Bingham 的八大準則 (文章末端附上英文版)：

1. 法律須容易為大眾所理解，盡可能易懂、清楚且可以預料。
2. 有關合法權利和法律責任的問題，通常應透過運用法律而非行使酌情權加以解決。
3. 法律應平等適用於所有人，除非客觀差異要求差別對待。
4. 所有公職人員在行使所享權力時，必須真誠、公正，並依照法律授予其權力之目的，不越權，亦不違理性。
5. 法律必須為基本人權提供充分保護。
6. 提供有效的解決爭議的方法和途徑，不應收費過高，不應延誤過長。
7. 任何提供之裁決程序應當公正。
8. 法治要求國家在遵守國內法規定的義務之時，同樣遵守國際法規定義務。

簡而言之，如果單純以守法來解讀法治，恐怕只是一種流於表面的理解。當然守法是其中一個重要元素，但法治核心的價值，其實是包括所有人和機構，不論是個人還是公職人員，一方面須受法律約束，同時亦要確保法律賦予的權利得到充份保障，而這些過程必須是公開而且透明，並透過法庭得以彰顯。特別是對於行使公權力的人員，他們比一般市民擁有額外權力，這些權力皆由法律賦予，當然亦理應受法律加以約束。

無論你本身是甚麼立場，無論你心裡現在充斥著的是憤怒、失望、還是絕望，懇請你仔細了解，好好想清楚，連日來所發生的事，是否仍然乎合「法治」這個普世價值？是誰本來有能力真正化解僵局，卻選擇做或不做某些行動，令一眾本來都熱愛香港的市民置於對立面？

一切看在眼裡，記在心裡，不會忘記，歷史自有公論。

Instagram @lessonsfromtime

廷伸閱讀
"The Rule of Law" by Tom Bingham

Bingham's Rule of Law principles:

1. The law must be accessible, intelligible, clear and predictable.
2. Questions of legal rights and liabilities should ordinarily be resolved by the law and not the exercise of discretion.
3. The law should apply equally to all, except where objective differences justify differentiation.
4. All public officials must exercise their powers in good faith and fairly, and exercise such powers for the purposes they were conferred, without acting beyond the limits of such powers, and they must always act reasonably.
5. The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights.
6. There must be an effective means of dispute resolution, without prohibitive cost or delay. 
7. Any adjudicative processes provided for by the state should be fair.
8. The rule of law must be complied with by the state taking into account its national and international obligations.


#HazbinHotel #PILOT

我並不擁有此影片 影片所有權歸屬於Vivziepop
I do NOT own this video, all rights goes to Vivziepop

贊助影片原作者,幫助她製作更多精彩的動畫!
贊助 HAZBIN HOTEL 的 PATREON 網址: https://www.patreon.com/VivienneMedrano

原影片網址(Original Video Link):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlmswo0S0e0

考完試以為自己輕鬆了
突然忘記自己同時也是老師要去改考卷跟上班 (拍額頭)
於是又再次陷入繁忙的輪迴

註解區:

1:14 Angel開頭說"To be fair..."
fair這個字是「公平」的意思, 所以這裡Angel的意思其實是「我們不管他是誰, 公平地說」「妳相信過任何男人嗎?」
但因為中文我們開頭不會說「公平地說...」所以我們改成「憑心而論」來傳遞Angel的這句「不管他是什麼鬼神怪物, 反正妳就不相信男人啊~」

1:16 Any man? man?
其實man也可以指「人類」, 這裡連續問下去的部分也是Angel想表達「妳就誰都不信啊, 男人妳又不信, 其他普通人勒?」

2:48
我後來發現這句很多人都會被一個慣用法誤導導致翻錯
以前大概國中附近會學到"As long as" = 只要...(成立)
但這裡Charlie是說"for as long as you desire."
承接上一句「我命令你協助這間旅館」for (+時間) as long as (如同...一樣長)
因此必須被解讀成「我命令你協助這間旅館」「時間長度 就如同 你想要的 一樣長」
Charlie只是為了推掉「跟Alastor達成可疑的協議」這點
她並不是真的想用公主的名義強迫(也強迫不來XD) Alastor幫她忙
所以後面那句就是一個給尊重「那... 你就幫到不想幫為止, 想離開也沒關係」的感覺

3:02
Alastor為什麼這麼在乎微笑, 可以參考我們頻道社群頁面以前的情報翻譯喔
官方Twitter上曾解釋過Alastor為什麼要一直微笑
「一個有關Alastor的有趣事實! 他一直掛在臉上的微笑其實是種強烈強化自己自尊心的型態表現。他認為那些不能把真實情緒藏在微笑底下的人都是非常懦弱的，無論那些人有多強大，Alastor都鄙視他們。他可不喜歡那些常常皺眉頭的人! 他覺得發脾氣是件很可笑的事。」
(更多詳細請翻我們頻道社群貼文OuO/)

4:12
其實我之前就很掙扎到底Husk是想說four(四張)什麼, 還是full house (葫蘆)
我本來想翻葫蘆, 但他的手牌又不像打葫蘆, 所以後來還是翻四張
感謝熱心觀眾「黃紅」在底下留言點出他應該是想說full house

5:10
這裡的"If you wish"涵義上應該要是直翻的「如果你想要的話」
因為Alastor的意思其實是「你希望(我把這工作變得更吸引你)的話, 我可以變喔~」(變出酒給他)
這樣
但一樣的問題, 承接上句「我可以讓這份工作看起來更吸引你」「如果你想要的話」(會變成Alastor很像在說「如果你想接下這份工作的話」, 但不是, 他是說「如果你想要我讓這份工作更吸引你的話」
所以我們改成「如果你願意(接下這工作)的話」來讓中文變流暢

5:26
其實我也沒有很確定我有沒有聽對Vaggie說的
我最後推測出來的, 最可能的應該是"Nail, waffle, men cave"
nail可以說「有犯罪傾向的事物」, waffle可以是「胡扯胡鬧」, 而這兩個剛好搭上最後的"man cave"
"Man cave"除了字面解讀成「男人洞窟(意指男人聚集的秘密基地)」以外, 它還可以被延伸來指那種「一群男人在裡面喝酒鬧事, 圖謀不軌的秘密基地」(這稍微有點性別刻板印象吧XD 就是對一群男人聚集在一起感到不信任)

6:10
如我們之前社群貼文提過的
「我個人」覺得這裡的belle應該不僅代表著美人, 也有想致敬童話的感覺
其實在想到belle是指美人之前
我更加認為它應該更接近名詞的那個「貝兒」
這種中間有大階梯的畫面，加上歌詞跟動作，我看到的當下感覺就是在致敬《美女與野獸》
第一次看的時候我更覺得歌詞含義應該是「地獄裡獨一無二的惡魔版Belle」
在美女與野獸的故事裡，即使當時野獸一直把貝兒推開，貝兒當時仍然相信野獸(也就是王子)是可以變好的
情況就像Charlie相信著地獄的罪人內心一定有著善良一樣，相信他們能夠改過

6:20
我對"lost cause"本來的認知是「注定沒機會成功的事物」
不過在觀眾提出「死性不改」之後, 我去查了一下, 好像死性不改會比較接近的感覺?
這點我再跟翻譯組的人討論討論

6:24
"dress them up" 就是「幫他們打扮」盛裝打扮等等
但也可以是僅僅做表面功夫的偽裝
這裡Alastor的歌詞跟動作應該是在雙關而已
要給惡魔救贖當然不是靠「把他們打扮的漂漂亮亮」可以處裡的
(但他的動作確實在打扮Vaggie, 所以是雙關字面涵義跟真正的意思XD)

"Dress them up with a smile"「先用微笑來打扮他們」→「先讓他們微笑, 來做好表面, 以此開始救贖的第一步」
所以我們這裡翻成「但我們可以先從微笑開始把他們變好」從微笑開始改變起XD
然後又去弄Vaggie (因為Vaggie在他面前最常臭臉)

7:54 "I am on a roll" 意思是「我手氣正旺」或「正好運不斷」的意思喔
在賭博或是玩遊戲的情況下非常常見這種說法

8:01"The game is set" 意思是「勝負已定」
我猜想, Alastor的意思應該是「那些罪人不會得到救贖, 但我會得到娛樂」的勝負已定
從他告訴Charlie他不相信醉人可以得到救贖的地方 + 他唱歌時說的"lost cause"
前面說「鴻運當頭」是很高興自己有機會參與Charlie的這間旅館(來娛樂自己)
因此把這件事當成一種遊戲, 但因為他堅信這救贖注定沒用, 一定是那些罪人又會自己跌入深淵的鬧劇罷了, 所以最終勝負(大局)已定, 的意思

-剩下的等我想到再來補OUO/-


也希望大家能多多支持我們翻譯組!
訂閱頻道追蹤更多我們的影片!
關於我們翻譯組: https://home.gamer.com.tw/creationDetail.php?sn=4035888
動畫與額外翻譯的網誌:https://weedtrouble.blogspot.com/
我們的Twitter: https://twitter.com/TransWeed

片尾音樂來源:
Track: Janji - Heroes Tonight (feat. Johnning) [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nQNiWdeH2Q
Free Download / Stream: http://ncs.io/ht