A person who has failed to answer, or has given a false answer to, questions under the provisions of Article 97, paragraph (1), item (i) or paragraph (2) (Questioning, Inspection, etc. for Review), or who has refused, obstructed, or evaded an inspection under the provisions of paragraph (1), item (iii) or paragraph (2) of that Article, or has presented books and documents containing false statements or records in connection with that inspection, is punished by a fine of not more than 300,000 yen; provided, however, that this does not apply to a requester for review, etc. prescribed in paragraph (4) of that Article.
第九十七条第一項第一号若しくは第二項（審理のための質問、検査等）の規定による質問に対して答弁せず、若しくは偽りの答弁をし、又は同条第一項第三号若しくは第二項の規定による検査を拒み、妨げ、若しくは忌避し、若しくは当該検査に関し偽りの記載若しくは記録をした帳簿書類を提示した者は、三十万円以下の罰金に処する。ただし、同条第四項に規定する審査請求人等は、この限りでない。
fine
罰金
A criminal punishment of paying money to the state, of 10,000 yen or more, or less where it is reduced (Penal Code, Article 15). It ranks below imprisonment (拘禁刑) and above penal detention (拘留) and a petty fine (科料) (Articles 9 and 10, paragraph (1)). A person who cannot pay it in full is held in a workhouse (労役場) for one day to two years, or up to three years where fines are imposed together, a period set when the sentence is passed (Article 18, paragraphs (1), (3) and (4)); not within thirty days of the sentence becoming final without the person's consent (paragraph (5)). If it is not enforced for three years after the sentence becomes final, the person is released from it by prescription (Articles 31 and 32, item (v)); the three years do not run while its execution is suspended under law or the person is abroad, and an act of execution interrupts them (Articles 33 and 34, paragraph (2)).
Written by AI using Penal Code, Arts. 9, 10, 15, 18, 31 to 34 as a reference.
request for review
審査請求
A request to an administrative agency (行政庁) to review a disposition (処分) the person objects to, or, where the person applied for a disposition under a law or regulation and a reasonable time has passed with none made, the agency's failure to act (不作為) (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Articles 2 and 3). Unless an Act, or for a disposition based on a local ordinance (条例) that ordinance, provides otherwise, it is made to the agency that made the disposition or failed to act where that agency has no superior agency or is itself the competent minister (主任の大臣) or the head of certain agencies; where such a minister or head is the agency above it, to that minister or head; and otherwise to its highest superior agency (Article 4). Another Act can set rules of its own for it, naming another body to make it to or another route (Article 1, paragraph (2); Article 4): the Employees' Pension Insurance Act, for instance, has a request about a disposition (処分) of the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare (厚生労働大臣) on a person's status as insured, standard remuneration or insurance benefits, other than a decision on a request to correct the pension insurance register, made to a social insurance examiner (社会保険審査官), and disapplies most of the Administrative Complaint Review Act's rules for it (Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Articles 90, paragraph (1), and 91-2). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, a request about a disposition must be made within three months of the day after the person learned of it — or one month after learning of the decision, where a request for re-investigation (再調査の請求) was made first — and within a year of the disposition or that decision, unless there is a justifiable reason (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2)). Making one does not by itself stop the disposition taking effect or being carried out, or the proceedings going on (Article 25, paragraph (1)), but the agency reviewing it can suspend them in whole or in part on the application of the person who made the request — and, where it made the disposition or is the agency above the one that did, of its own motion — and, once the person who made the request has applied, must where that is urgently needed to avoid serious harm, unless that would seriously affect the public welfare or the request appears to have no grounds (Article 25, paragraphs (2) to (4)). The agency reviewing it (審査庁) decides it by a determination (裁決): it dismisses a request that is unlawful, for instance one made too late, rejects one that is groundless, and, where one is well founded, revokes the disposition in whole or in part or changes it — though never to the disadvantage of the person who made the request, and an agency that neither made the disposition nor is above the agency that did cannot change it (Articles 45, paragraphs (1) and (2), 46, paragraph (1), and 48). Where the request is about a de facto act (事実上の行為), the determination instead declares the act unlawful or unjust and orders it abolished in whole or in part or changed, or abolishes or changes it (Article 47). A well-founded request about a failure to act ends instead in a determination declaring the failure unlawful or unjust, and, where the agency finds a disposition should be made, an order to make it or the disposition itself (Article 49, paragraph (3)). Where revoking an unlawful or unjust disposition, or abolishing an unlawful or unjust de facto act, would seriously harm the public interest, the agency can reject the request while declaring in the determination that it is unlawful or unjust (Article 45, paragraph (3)). The determination takes effect when it is served on the person who made the request — or, where someone other than the disposition's addressee made it and the determination revokes or changes the disposition or deals with a de facto act, once it is served on the addressee too — and binds the agencies concerned (Articles 51, paragraph (1), and 52, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1 to 4, 18, 25, 45 to 49, 51, 52 and Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Arts. 90, 91-2 as a reference.