Law Concerning Order, etc. -Wikipedia
Source: Free encyclopedia “Wikipedia”
 |
This article explains the laws and regulations in Japan unless otherwise described. It may not reflect the latest laws and regulations.
|
Law on maintaining order of court, etc. (Horitetsu, a chitsujojiji of Hoshito, the Act No. 286 of July 31, 1952) is a Japanese law. The abbreviation is Court -order maintenance law 。
The judge’s procedure stipulates that sanctions (20 days or less or less than 30,000 yen or less) are imposed on those who have hindered the judge or hustle and bustle or who have significantly harmed the court of the court.
As a sub -legal law, it was determined in the form of the Supreme Court Regulations as the autonomous function of the court specified in Article 77 of the Japanese Constitution. Rules for maintaining order of court, etc. There is.
| Supreme Court Case | |
|---|---|
| Incident name | Special appeal for the decision to dismiss it in sanctions by the law on maintaining order of court, etc. |
| Case number | Showa 28 (Shinto) 1 |
| October 15, 1955 | |
| Precedent | Penalty Volume 12, No. 14, page 3291 |
| Summary of trials | |
|
Sanctions by the law on the maintenance of order, such as one, are special punishment set by this law, which does not belong to any of the traditional criminal administrative punishment. And this law is applied by the court or the judge in the case of a court or a judge in a place where it can be known directly, or the current criminal act. Therefore, in this case, it is not only within the scope of the constitutional procedures regarding criminal trials such as disclosure of warrants, disclosure of reasons for detention, prosecution, and lawyer request right, but also evidence. There is no. (Ii) In Article 2 of the Act on the maintenance of the order of court, etc., the detection of the actor under Article 3, paragraph (2) of the law is Article 3, 33, Article 34 and Article 34. It does not violate Article 37. |
|
| Supreme Court Court | |
| Presiding judge | Kotaro Tanaka |
| Judge | Katsushima Kotani Yusuke Saito Yusuke Fujita Hachiro Kawamura Katsumi Tarumi Kawamura Daisuke Shimomura Kenichi Okuno Tsuneichi Takagi Takagi Nanashizaka |
| Opinion | |
| Opinion | Kenichi Okuno |
| Reference | |
| Article 1 of the Act on Maintenance of Court, etc., Article 2 of the Act on Maintenance of Court, etc., Article 3 of the Act on Maintenance of the Court, Article 3 of the Law on Maintenance of Court, etc. Section, Article 32 of the Constitution, Article 33 of the Constitution, Article 34 of the Constitution, Article 37 of the Constitution | |
Supreme Court on October 15, 1952
- The sanctions by the law on maintaining order, such as court, are a special punishment set by this law, which does not belong to any of the traditional criminal administrative punishment. And this law is applied by the court or the judge in the case of a court or a judge in a place where it can be known directly, or the current criminal act. Therefore, in this case, it is not only within the scope of the constitutional procedures regarding criminal trials such as disclosure of warrants, disclosure of reasons for detention, prosecution, and lawyer request right, but also evidence. There is no.
- The integration decision based on Article 2 of the Act on Maintenance of Court, etc., and the detention of the actors pursuant to Article 32, Paragraph 2 of the Act that violate Article 32, Article 33, Article 34 and Article 37. isn’t it.
Related item [ edit ]
Recent Comments