Code of Criminal Procedure

When a court has no jurisdiction over a case under public prosecution, it must render a decision of lack of jurisdiction by a judgment; provided however, that it may not render such decision on a case which has been committed to a district court for trial pursuant to the provisions of Article 266, item (ii).

When there is an institution of prosecution for a case falling under the special jurisdiction of a high court and the high court finds the case falls under the jurisdiction of a lower court, the high court must, on a ruling, transfer the case to the court with jurisdiction notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article.

A court may not render a decision of lack of territorial jurisdiction without the petition of the defendant.

A petition for lack of jurisdiction may not be made after the commencement of examination of evidence on a case under public prosecution.

When a summary court finds it reasonable for the case to be tried by a district court, it must, on a ruling, transfer the case to the district court with jurisdiction.

When a case under public prosecution is proven to be a crime, a court must render a sentence by a judgment, except as provided in Article 334.

The suspended execution of a sentence must be rendered by a judgment at the same time as rendition of the sentence. The same applies to the case the person is placed under probation during the period of suspended execution of the sentence.

Exculpation of a person under public prosecution must be rendered by a judgment.

When pronouncing a sentence, the court must signify the facts constituting the crime, the list of evidence, and the application of laws and regulations.

When it is being argued that there are legal grounds that prevent a crime from being established, or that there are grounds to increase, reduce or remit the punishment, the court must render its judgment on this.

When a case under public prosecution does not constitute a crime or has not been proven to be a crime, the court must render a verdict of not guilty in its judgment.

The court must bar further prosecution through a judgment if:

a final and binding judgment has been reached in a case;

the punishment is repealed by laws and regulations established after the crime;

there is a general pardon;

the statute of limitations expires.

The court must make a judgment to render a dismissal of prosecution when:

it has no national jurisdiction over the defendant;

the prosecution has been instituted in violation of Article 340;

there is a further institution of prosecution for the same case in the same court;

the procedure of the institution of prosecution is ineffective because of violation of the provisions.

The court must render a dismissal of prosecution on a ruling when:

the institution of prosecution ceases to be effective in accordance with the provisions of Article 271, paragraph (2);

the facts written in the charging sheet, although they may be true, do not include any facts constituting a crime;

the prosecution has been revoked;

the defendant is deceased or a corporation which is the defendant ceases to exist;

the case may not be tried in accordance with the provisions of Article 10 or 11.

An immediate appeal against the ruling prescribed in the preceding paragraph may be filed.

When a ruling of dismissal of prosecution based on revocation of the prosecution becomes final and binding, prosecution for the same case may be instituted again only when important new evidence of the facts of the crime is discovered after the revocation.

When the defendant does not make any statement, leaves the court without permission, or is ordered to leave the court by the presiding judge for the sake of maintenance of order, the court may render a judgment without hearing said person's statement.

Notice of judgments is given by being pronounced in open court.

A person who has received the pronouncement of a judgment to impose imprisonment or a greater punishment must not leave Japan without the permission of the court.

A person who has received the pronouncement of a judgment to impose imprisonment or a greater punishment, or the defense counsel, legal representative, curator, spouse, lineal relative or sibling of that person, may file a request for the permission under the preceding Article.

When a request under the preceding Article has been made, if the court finds that there are special circumstances that justify permitting departure from Japan, it may, by ruling, designate the period during which the person may be outside Japan and grant the permission under Article 342-2; provided, however, that this does not apply to a person for whom a written detention order prescribed in Article 40 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (Cabinet Order No. 319 of 1951; hereinafter referred to as the "Immigration Control Act") (including as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 44-4, paragraph (4) of the Immigration Control Act) or a written deportation order prescribed in Article 51 of the Immigration Control Act has been issued, or to a person under supervision measures prescribed in Article 44-2, paragraph (7) of the Immigration Control Act.

In determining whether there are special circumstances prescribed in the main clause of the preceding paragraph, the court is to take into consideration the extent of the risk that, where the permission under Article 342-2 is granted, a person who has received the pronouncement of a judgment to impose imprisonment or a greater punishment will not return to Japan or land in Japan within the period designated under the preceding paragraph, as well as the extent of the disadvantage to be incurred by that person due to being unable to leave Japan, and other circumstances.

If a court makes a ruling for the request under the preceding Article, the court must hear the opinion of the public prosecutor.

The court may extend the period under the main clause of paragraph (1) if it finds it necessary.

When the court finds, with regard to a person who has received the permission under Article 342-2, that it is no longer necessary for the person to be outside Japan until the end of the period designated as the period during which the person may be outside Japan (hereinafter referred to as the "designated period"), the court may shorten that designated period.

When granting the permission under Article 342-2, the court must fix the amount of the bond for return, etc.; provided, however, that this does not apply when granting the permission under that Article to a defendant who has received a ruling granting bail.

The amount of the bond for return, etc. must be an appropriate amount sufficient to guarantee that the person will return to or land in Japan within the period designated under paragraph (1) of the preceding Article, taking into consideration the category and term of the sentence pertaining to the judgment pronounced, the character, the base of living and assets of the person who has received the pronouncement of the judgment, and, where that person is a foreign national, the content of that person's status of residence (meaning the status of residence prescribed in Article 2-2, paragraph (1) of the Immigration Control Act), and other circumstances.

When granting the permission under Article 342-2, the court may restrict the destination of travel of the person receiving the permission and attach any other conditions it finds appropriate.

The permission under Article 342-2 takes effect, when the amount of the bond for return, etc. has been fixed, at the time the bond for return, etc. is paid.

The provisions of Article 94, paragraphs (2) and (3) apply mutatis mutandis to the payment of the bond for return, etc. In this case, the phrase "the person requesting bail" in paragraph (2) of that Article is deemed to be replaced with "the person who made the request under Article 342-3", and the phrase "the defendant" in paragraph (3) of that Article with "a person who has received the pronouncement of a judgment to impose imprisonment or a greater punishment".

When a person who has received the permission under Article 342-2 has been issued a written detention order prescribed in Article 40 of the Immigration Control Act or a written deportation order prescribed in Article 51 of the Immigration Control Act, or has received a decision on supervision measures prescribed in Article 44-2, paragraph (7) of the Immigration Control Act, the court must rescind that permission by ruling.

If the court finds that any of the following items applies, it may rescind the permission under Article 342-2 by ruling, upon the request of the public prosecutor or ex officio.

when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person who has received the permission under Article 342-2 will, without justifiable grounds, not return to or land in Japan within the designated period;

when a person who has received the permission under Article 342-2 has violated a restriction on the destination of travel or any other condition set by the court.

When rescinding the permission under Article 342-2 pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the court may, by ruling, forfeit all or part of the bond for return, etc. (or, where the bail bond under Article 94, paragraph (1) has been paid, that bail bond; the same applies in the following paragraph).

If a person who has received the permission under Article 342-2 does not, without justifiable grounds, return to or land in Japan within the designated period, the court may, upon the request of the public prosecutor or ex officio, forfeit all or part of the bond for return, etc. by ruling.