Background
Prosecutors initially charged the defendant with two thefts committed with unidentified accomplices. The charges alleged that the defendant stole ¥500,000 from an A Bank ATM on November 29, 2023, and another ¥500,000 from an A Bank ATM on November 30, 2023.
The prosecution later sought to amend the charges by adding four further ATM-theft incidents involving a total of ¥1.73 million. The Kyoto District Court allowed the amendment and convicted the defendant of those offenses together with other theft and concealment-of-criminal-proceeds offenses, imposing three years’ imprisonment, suspended for five years, and a ¥500,000 fine. On the prosecution’s appeal, the Osaka High Court vacated that sentence as unduly lenient and imposed an unsuspended term of two years and ten months plus a ¥1 million fine.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court held that the four additional theft incidents could not lawfully be introduced by amending the original charges. They were separate offenses lacking the “identity of charged facts” required by Article 312(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore should have been charged through separate indictments. Nothing in the record justified treating the amendment as equivalent to the institution of prosecution.
Because no prosecution had been instituted for the additional thefts, both lower courts unlawfully adjudicated matters for which no request for trial had been made, within the meaning of Article 378(3). The error plainly affected the judgments, and leaving the High Court judgment intact would have been manifestly contrary to justice. Acting under Articles 411(1) and 413, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated both lower-court judgments and remanded to the Kyoto District Court for further proceedings, including consideration of whether prosecution had been instituted for the additional allegations.
In a supplementary opinion, Justice Mamoru Miura emphasized that a supplemental indictment initiates a new adjudicative proceeding, whereas adding a count by amendment operates only within an existing proceeding. He explained that the defect concerned the existence of a valid request for adjudication and was not cured by service of the written amendment, defense counsel’s failure to object, the use of procedures resembling those for a supplemental indictment, or the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the defendant.
Key Takeaways
- A charge may be amended only when the new allegation preserves the identity of the charged facts under Article 312(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Factually separate offenses must be prosecuted by indictment; a charge amendment cannot substitute for instituting a new prosecution.
- Adjudicating an uncharged offense is a fundamental procedural violation that is not cured by the defendant’s consent, failure to object, or lack of practical prejudice.
Why It Matters
The judgment draws a firm jurisdictional boundary between amending an existing charge and bringing an additional prosecution. Even when the parties and court proceed as though a supplemental indictment had been filed, procedural similarity cannot supply the legal authority to adjudicate a separate offense.
The decision also underscores the responsibility of prosecutors and courts to identify whether added allegations share the required identity with the original charged facts. Failure to do so can require vacatur and a first-instance remand, undermining both speedy adjudication and procedural economy.