1. Defendant B

A. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, (1) As to the ground of appeal No. 1 of the grounds of appeal, the indictment must contain only the matters required by law.

It is right that it is reasonable to put the reason why the court should make the judgment on the first place of the charge, regardless of the facts charged, unnecessary.

in principle, it is appropriate that the facts involved in the charge should be described in the requirements of the constitution of the crime, and it is also appropriate to keep it an unnecessary way as the first head fact and stiffly.

subsection (b) of this section.

However, if the first head stated in the indictment appears to have been clearly stated in order to clearly express the criminal intent or conspiracy of the facts charged, motive or circumstance leading to the crime, etc., the method of prosecution is unlawful because it violates the Japaneseism in the indictment (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1751, Sept. 22, 1992; 93Do3145, Mar. 11, 1994; 99Do202, May 14, 1999). Even in cases where it is not the direct motive of the crime, the motive does not affect the validity of the indictment even if it is not the direct motive of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do748, May 11, 2007). The issue of violation of Japaneseism should be determined based on the type and content of the crime as stated in the indictment, the contents of the indictment or other things quoted in the indictment, and the facts other than the facts requested by the judge or the jury in question can be identified in the relevant case.

In light of these standards, the prosecution against Japanese indictment system is recognized.