Background
The Tokorozawa Summary Court heard charges against a defendant accused of attempted filming of a person in a sexual posture, a violation of the Law on Punishment for Filming Sexual Postures and Related Conduct. On August 22, 2025, the summary court issued a summary order finding the defendant guilty and imposing a petty fine (科料) of 400,000 yen, or in default, labor detention at a conversion rate of 5,000 yen per day. The order became final on September 10, 2025.
The defendant filed an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the sentence imposed. The appeal raised a technical but fundamental question about the court’s authority to select a particular type of criminal penalty.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court held that the summary order was illegal and reversed it. The Court found that the summary court had violated the law by imposing a petty fine, which is not an authorized penalty under the applicable statute. According to the Law on Punishment for Filming Sexual Postures, the legal punishments for attempted filming of a person in a sexual posture are imprisonment of three years or less, or a fine of 3 million yen or less. The law contains no provision authorizing a “petty fine” (科料).
Although the Court acknowledged that the petty fine is technically a lighter punishment than the regular fine that would otherwise be appropriate, this fact did not cure the fundamental illegality. Under Criminal Code of Procedure Article 458(1), the Court reversed the portion of the summary order imposing the unauthorized penalty type. The Court determined that the defendant could not benefit from an exception allowing reversal only when verdicts are disadvantageous to the accused, since the defendant was not materially harmed by the penalty type error in this instance.
Key Takeaways
- Courts cannot impose criminal penalties outside the range and types specified by statute, regardless of whether the unauthorized penalty appears lenient to the defendant.
- The distinction between penalty categories (petty fine versus regular fine) is legally binding and cannot be ignored or treated as a mere formality.
- Formal legality in criminal sentencing is a fundamental protection that courts must observe even in summary proceedings with simplified procedures.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that statutory compliance in criminal sentencing is not a technicality to be waived for convenience. Even when a court’s error in selecting a penalty type results in a lighter burden for the defendant, the error must still be corrected to maintain the rule of law and the integrity of the criminal code. For practitioners and courts throughout Japan, the ruling clarifies that the legislatively prescribed scheme of punishment options cannot be circumvented or modified.
The decision also illustrates the Supreme Court’s strict supervisory role over summary courts, ensuring that simplified procedures do not permit substantive departures from criminal law. Japanese courts applying the Law on Punishment for Filming Sexual Postures must now be vigilant that sentences comply precisely with the statutory penalty framework.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.