Summary of facts (2)

Ignoring statute of limitations

Supreme court case supporting the prosecution's domineering.

There is a significant reason that the SEC has failed to keep pace with prosecutors and has only filed administrative and criminal charges for the last three years.
This is largely related to the prosecution's own prosecution, separating the first five years from the last three years.All criminal lawyers have decided to silence in shame of the past.
This is because the prosecution statute is in effect for the first five years.

There are shameful cases in criminal cases in Japan.
It is a precedent prevailing in the famous Hakusan Maru case 58 years ago.
In reality, it is a popular knowledge that has spread to the public with the private knowledge that escaping overseas does not complete aging.

Prosecutors have used the Supreme Court case as a shield to investigate the criminal's overseas travel history, and have filed countless cases stating that the prescription has not been completed.
This has had very discriminatory consequences for those traveling abroad and working, especially foreigners.

The Ghosn case is no exception.
Ghosn is originally a foreigner living in a foreign country, so he is rather short in Japan.
Ghosn was indicted in this position eight years ago, stating that "the statute of limitations will not be completed while abroad."

The prosecution's calculation of the period of suspension of the prosecution includes extremely serious case violations and logic violations.
However, as is often the case, none of the scholars has pointed out a serious case violation.
Since the court case was illegal in the first place, and because it was further interpreted illegally, the sign with the rule of law should be lowered immediately.

Let's start by explaining what violates case law.The case in this case was a smuggling criminal, and after a single smuggling, he re-entered the country and found himself exposed and found guilty.
The period of suspension of the prosecution was one continuous period.
Ghosn's are intermittent departure periods in which entry and departure are
repeated.
The prosecutor added this simply.
Intermittent departure periods were summed up, with the interpretation of the case clearly different from the case in the case.
This alone is clearly a violation of case law.Just in case, let me explain why the sum of intermittent departure periods is absurd.
This is because the statute of limitations will start as soon as you enter the country, and the statute of limitation will be completed from the statutory statute of limitation at the time of the criminal offense, regardless of whether or not there has been a statute of limitations.

The reason that the Hakusan Maru case itself is an illegal case in the first place is evident from the large controversy at the Criminal Procedure Law Society from that time.
However, at that time, the scholar's logical justice was defeated by the judge and the prosecutor's doctrine of neglect and logic.
Since that time, the ruling pointed out that it would unfairly discriminate against overseas employees.
Sixty years later, in the Ghosn case, it is clearly a case of foreign discrimination
You have to be in the limelight.
However, the age of precedents was too old, and nobody concretely considered the case and logic of precedents.
Because he does not reconsider, only the conclusion continues to walk alone.

Hakusan Maru Supreme Court Case

The direct question was whether the “when the offender is outside the country” in the first paragraph of Article 255, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be the sole requirement for suspension of prosecution.
Or, in two cases, "when the criminal is outside the country" and "when the criminal is running away (case)", "the prescription shall be suspended because the copy of the indictment cannot be effectively served. 

The Supreme Court interpreted formally two parallel sentences at the location of the term “case”.
On the other hand, ordinary Japanese interpreted that, in spite of the position of the word "case", taking into account the meaning, two cases where a copy of the indictment could not be reached, in which case the prescription would stop. 

The deciding factor between whether the Supreme Court's interpretation is correct or the ordinary Japanese interpretation is actually laid down in the provisions of Article 254 of the preceding Article, which is the principle rule of the statute of limitations.
To put it simply, a prerequisite for the suspension of the prosecution statute is that the prosecutor is at a stage where a prosecution can be filed.
The wording simply states that "the prosecutor will prosecute a prosecution," but it means that if the case is not mature up to that point, the prosecution shall not be suspended or recognized.
The essence of the prescription system is that it has a legal effect on the existence of certain objective facts.
In particular, since the prosecution statute is the statute of limitations on the prosecution's right to prosecute, it requires the existence of the prosecutor's objective legal act.
That is nothing but a prosecution.

However, this alone does not solve the problem.
It remains a question of what to do in case of non-arrival of the indictment.
Article 254 stipulates only the case of arrival and does not state the case of non-arrival.
Therefore, Article 255 supplementarily stipulates the case where the indictment has not been reached.
There was no problem unless an example of non-reach was given.
The prosecutor abused it because it had two examples, with sloppy and inaccurate Japanese expressions.
The judge further assisted by forcing the interpretation.

But the problem did not end there.The Supreme Court was a breach that had to show a reasonable reason for the statute to stop simply by saying "the culprit was abroad."
If this succeeded, there was no problem, but the Supreme Court failed.
But no theory at the time pointed to this failure.
So this illegal case survived.

The case law says. If the culprit is outside the country, the right of criminal scrutiny would be out of reach of the state and the search could not be conducted.
It is clear from a little concrete consideration that this is a bright red fallacy.
By the way, let's point out the deception in the case of Hakusan Maru.
Smuggling offenses are completed when they cross territorial waters. After that, there is no need to investigate because the criminal is out of the country and whatever he does is not related to the crime.
There is no hindrance to the investigation within the territorial waters.
All other domestic criminals have no difficulty in investigating even if the culprit is abroad.
In the case of foreign criminals, the Japanese criminal right is certainly not covered, but rather the local penalty is applied first, so the exercise of national power is a double punishment.
There is no inconvenience even if the investigation is not possible. How the Supreme Court's reasoning
It is obvious that it is literally a desk theory.